Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 37 references

The Primakoff effect: The Axion-Photon Mixing in the Context of Stellar Plasma Physics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A magnetic field in a stellar plasma makes axions and photons oscillate, and the paper derives both the conversion probability and the production rate.

desk verdict A clear but unoriginal re-derivation of Raffelt-Stodolsky mixing; the central production rate (5.11) contradicts the paper's own equations. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09103 v2 pith:RC47R3R5 submitted 2025-06-10 hep-ph hep-th

Bernard Teles de Menezes This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-th PACS 14.80.Va
keywords Primakoffeffectaxion-photonmixingaxionelectrodynamicsstellarplasmakineticthermalproductiondarkmatterportaltransitionprobability
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 treats axion production in a magnetized stellar plasma as a background-field mixing problem. It claims that a constant external magnetic field induces kinetic mixing between the axion and the photon, the Primakoff effect, so that neither field is a simultaneous eigenstate of energy and momentum. In the high-energy limit the paper derives a two-state oscillation probability $P_{a_\parallel\to\phi}=\sin^2(2\theta)\sin^2(\Delta_{\rm osc}z)$ and a thermal production rate $\dot n_e=\Gamma\Delta_M^2/((\Delta_\parallel-\Delta_a)^2+\Gamma^2/4)\cdot(e^{\omega/T}-1)^{-1}$. The same probability is obtained two independent ways, from linearized field equations and from linearized propagators. The result matters because it frames the axion as a portal to dark matter and gives a concrete formula for stellar energy-loss estimates.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the $2\times2$ mixing Hamiltonian $H_I$ in the parallel-polarization/axion subspace, with entries $\Delta_\parallel$ (photon plasma and birefringence shift), $\Delta_a=m^2/2\omega$ (axion mass shift), and $\Delta_M=gB_b/2$ (magnetic mixing). It is diagonalized by an $SO(2)$ rotation with $\sin 2\theta=\Delta_M/\Delta_{\rm osc}$, and the translation operator $U(z)=e^{-iH_I z}$ generates the oscillation probability. The same matrix reappears in the inverse kinetic matrix of the Fourier-space Lagrangian, i.e. as a linearized propagator whose Fourier transform reproduces the off-diagonal mixing amplitude. For production, the same Hamiltonian is inserted into a quantum-Liouville equation with a phenomenological photon damping and emission matrix $G$, yielding the steady-state rate.

What would settle it

Compute the photon damping rate $\Gamma$ from first principles in a magnetized electron plasma, or measure it in a laboratory plasma, and compare the resulting production rate (5.11) with helioscope observations of solar axions; a significant discrepancy would show the phenomenological $G=\mathrm{diag}(\Gamma,0)$ assumption fails. Alternatively, detect axion-to-photon conversion in a controlled magnetized plasma and check whether the probability follows $\sin^2(2\theta)\sin^2(\Delta_{\rm osc}z)$ with the predicted $\Delta_M=gB_b/2$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that, in the background-field approximation with a constant external magnetic field $B_b$ inside a plasma, the axion and the photon polarization component parallel to $B_b$ form a two-level system described by a mixing matrix $H_I$ with diagonal terms $\Delta_\parallel$ and $\Delta_a$ and off-diagonal term $\Delta_M=gB_b/2$. The eigenstates are mixtures with $\sin 2\theta=\Delta_M/\Delta_{\rm osc}$, where $\Delta_{\rm osc}$ is half the eigenvalue splitting. A beam that starts as a photon therefore oscillates into axions with probability $\sin^2(2\theta)\sin^2(\Delta_{\rm osc}z)$. The same amplitude emerges from the Fourier-space Lagrangian through the inverse kinetic matrix, the linearized propagator, whose residue reproduces the off-diagonal mixing element. The paper further derives a steady-state axion and photon production rate by feeding the same Hamiltonian into a quantum-Liouville equation for the density matrix, with a phenomenological damping matrix $G=\mathrm{diag}(\Gamma,0)$.

Load-bearing premise

The rate calculation assumes a phenomenological damping rate for photons, and assumes the mixing is a small perturbation; if that damping model or that weak-coupling assumption is wrong, the production rate is unreliable.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Axion and photon are not simultaneous energy and momentum eigenstates in a magnetized plasma, and only the photon polarization parallel to the external field mixes with the axion.
  • The conversion probability of Eq. (3.19) and the production rate of Eq. (5.11) can be used in stellar energy-loss arguments for objects such as the Sun and white dwarfs.
  • The production rate (5.11) holds both on resonance, $\Delta_\parallel=\Delta_a$, and away from it, so resonant and non-resonant conversion are covered by one formula.
  • Because the same mixing amplitude arises from the field-equation method and from the linearized-propagator method, the oscillation probability is a property of the linearized theory rather than an artifact of one derivation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same density-matrix machinery could be applied to photon–hidden-photon kinetic mixing by replacing the axion mass term with the hidden photon's effective mass, producing a direct comparison with solar hidden-photon constraints.
  • Because the production rate depends on $\Gamma$, a first-principles QED or plasma computation of the photon damping rate would turn Eq. (5.11) into a fully predictive stellar bound; the paper leaves $\Gamma$ phenomenological.
  • A testable extension is to integrate Eq. (5.11) over a solar model with a large-scale magnetic field and compare the predicted axion flux with helioscope observations; a mismatch would point to the damping model or to the background-field approximation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies axion-photon mixing in a magnetized stellar plasma using the background-field approximation. Section 2 reviews plasma dispersion relations and Faraday rotation in a magnetized medium. Section 3 linearizes the axion-Maxwell equations, diagonalizes the effective mixing Hamiltonian, and obtains the photon-axion conversion probability P_{a||→φ}=sin^2(2θ) sin^2(Δ_osc z), Eq. (3.19). Section 4 derives the same probability from linearized propagators, showing consistency between the two methods. Section 5 introduces a density-matrix master equation with phenomenological damping matrices and derives a thermal production rate, Eq. (5.11). The conclusions present the Primakoff effect as a portal to the axion/dark sector and outline future directions. The paper is written in Portuguese with an English abstract; the central technical results are the mixing probability and the production rate.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper gives a self-contained, parameter-free derivation of the standard Primakoff conversion probability and a density-matrix route to axion/photon production in a thermal plasma. The cross-check between the field-equation approach of Sec. 3 and the propagator approach of Sec. 4 is pedagogically useful and internally consistent. However, the production-rate section is not internally consistent as written, and the final rate depends on a phenomenological damping parameter that is not derived from plasma or QFT microphysics. Since Eq. (5.11) is advertised as one of the paper's main observables, the manuscript currently falls short of establishing that central claim.

major comments (3)
  1. [5, Eqs. (5.7)-(5.11)] The displayed production rate does not follow from the preceding equations. From the printed off-diagonal equation (5.7), with the stated definition Δω=(Δ∥−Δa)/2, the stationary solution is g(∞)=(Δω+iΓ/2)/(Δω²+Γ²/4) ΔM f_T, as written in (5.10). Since (5.7) also gives ˙n_e=2ΔM Im(g), substitution yields ˙n_e = ΓΔM² f_T/(Δω²+Γ²/4) = 4ΓΔM² f_T/((Δ∥−Δa)²+Γ²). This is not Eq. (5.11), whose denominator is (Δ∥−Δa)²+Γ²/4. Conversely, (5.11) would follow if the off-diagonal evolution carried 2Δω instead of Δω, which is in fact what the commutator with the H_I defined in (5.1) produces; but then (5.9)-(5.10) would have to be replaced by (2Δω+iΓ/2)/(4Δω²+Γ²/4). Thus Eqs. (5.7), (5.9)-(5.10), and (5.11) cannot all be correct simultaneously. This is a load-bearing error in the paper's central new result and must be corrected explicitly.
  2. [5, Eqs. (5.3)-(5.4)] The density-matrix master equation and the damping matrices G_prod and G_abs are introduced phenomenologically, with Γ_prod=e^{-ω/T}Γ_abs assumed as a detailed-balance relation. The final rate (5.11) is proportional to Γ, so the numerical production rate is not actually predicted unless Γ is supplied from plasma microphysics or QFT. The last paragraph of Sec. 5 states that the only approximation is ΔM<<Δω; this is inaccurate, because the entire master-equation structure, including the diagonal form of G and the detailed-balance condition, is an additional model assumption. The paper should either derive Γ from a plasma calculation or present (5.11) explicitly as a model-dependent formula parameterized by Γ.
  3. [3, Eq. (3.10)] Eq. (3.10) prints the eigenvalue as λ±=(Δ∥+Δa)/2 ± sqrt((Δ∥−Δa)²/4 + ΔM) with ΔM not squared. Since ΔM=gB_b/2 has dimensions of energy, the argument of the square root is dimensionally inconsistent. The correct expression is sqrt((Δ∥−Δa)²/4 + ΔM²), which is consistent with the propagator calculation in Eq. (4.6). As printed, this typo affects the definition of Δ_osc used in the central transition probability (3.19) and should be corrected before publication.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are many typographical and language errors (e.g., 'Schorëdinger', 'Lionville', inconsistent hyphenation, and missing powers in numbers such as the neutron EDM bound in the Introduction). A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [2.3, Eq. (2.29)] The intermediate expression for the refractive indexes contains an apparent typo: the denominator ω+ω_p should presumably be ω∓ω_B. Please check and correct.
  3. [5, Eq. (5.5)] The notation n_0 and n_e for the diagonal entries of δρ is not defined; in (5.7) n_0 appears in the off-diagonal equation and n_e in the diagonal rate. For clarity, define n_0≡n_a or rename these entries consistently.
  4. [References] Some references are incomplete or informal, e.g., Ref. [7] lacks journal/volume/page data, and Ref. [24] is an arXiv preprint. Please complete the bibliographic details.
  5. [Abstract/Title] The title and body are in Portuguese while the abstract is in English. If the intended venue is an English-language journal, the full text should be translated; if a Portuguese-language venue is intended, the abstract should be accompanied by a consistent editorial policy.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the mixing probability and propagator results follow from the stated Lagrangian, and the thermal rate, although dependent on a phenomenological damping input, is not equivalent to its inputs by construction.

full rationale

The central mixing derivation is self-contained. The background-field Lagrangian (2.35) and field equations (3.1)-(3.4) define the mixing Hamiltonian H_I in (3.9), and the transition probability (3.19) is obtained by diagonalizing that Hamiltonian, with Δ_M, Δ_||, and Δ_a all defined from the coupling and plasma properties rather than fitted. The propagator method in Section 4 independently reproduces the same off-diagonal amplitude (4.6)-(4.7) by Fourier inversion, which is a check rather than an imported result. No parameter is fitted to data and later renamed a prediction. The thermal production rate (5.11) is derived from the Liouvillian evolution equation (5.3) together with the phenomenological damping matrix G=diag(Γ,0) and the detailed-balance relation (5.4); those are inputs to the calculation, not outputs, so the result does not reduce to its own inputs by construction. Whether the phenomenological damping model is physically justified, and whether the algebra from (5.10) to (5.11) is correct, are correctness or completeness questions, not circularity. The cited literature (Raffelt-Stodolsky, Redondo-Raffelt, etc.) is standard external background and is not used to import a uniqueness theorem or to smuggle an ansatz from the authors' own prior work. The paper therefore shows no circular derivation within the meaning of this review.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivation relies on standard electrodynamics and cold-plasma response, on the background-field approximation, and on a phenomenological damping model for the density-matrix equation. No new entities are postulated and no parameters are fitted to data. The only hand-introduced parameter is Γ, the photon absorption/emission rate, which is essential to the production rate (5.11).

free parameters (1)
  • Γ (plasma damping/absorption rate)
    Introduced by hand in Eq. (5.4) as the photon absorption/emission rate. The production rate (5.11) depends on Γ, but the paper never derives Γ from plasma microphysics.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Standard Maxwell and Lorentz force equations with Fourier analysis
    Used throughout Section 2 to derive dispersion relations and electron response.
  • domain assumption Cold plasma approximation with uniform electron density, negligible collisions, and small oscillation amplitudes
    Used in Section 2.2, Eq. (2.16), to obtain the magnetized plasma dielectric response.
  • domain assumption High-frequency limit ω >> ω_B and ω >> ω_p, with Faraday rotation neglected
    Used in Sections 2.2 and 3 to linearize (ω^2-|k|^2) ≈ 2ω(ω+i∂_z) and drop the Faraday term.
  • domain assumption Background-field approximation: expand F = f + F_B, keep terms up to quadratic order, treat B_b as constant
    Introduced in Section 2.4, Eqs. (2.33)-(2.35), as the basis for the mixing derivation.
  • domain assumption Only transverse photon modes are considered; longitudinal plasmons are neglected
    Stated in Section 2.2 without a quantitative justification for stellar plasma conditions.
  • domain assumption Magnetic fields from thermal photons dominate the Primakoff source over electric fields from charged particles
    Assumed in Section 2.4 without numerical or analytical support.
  • ad hoc to paper Density-matrix formalism with phenomenological G_prod/abs matrices and detailed balance Γ_prod=e^{-ω/T}Γ_abs
    Introduced in Section 5, Eqs. (5.3)-(5.4), without a derivation from the underlying field theory or plasma kinetics.
  • domain assumption Small perturbation from thermal equilibrium (n0, ne << f_T) and weak mixing (ΔM << Δω)
    Assumed in Section 5 to truncate the density-matrix equations and solve for the steady state.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Primakoff effect: The Axion-Photon Mixing in the Context of Stellar Plasma Physics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RC47R3R5

@misc{pith2026250609103,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Primakoff effect: The Axion-Photon Mixing in the Context of Stellar Plasma Physics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RC47R3R5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09103}
}
read the original abstract

We propose in this work the study of the production of axions in stellar plasma medium through an external magnetic field. In the background field approximation, we can show that the presence of the external magnetic field induces a mixing between the photon and the axion, i.e. the so called Primakoff effect. Since the axion is one of the greatest candidates for dark matter, for being a neutral pseudo-scalar field, the Primakoff process constitutes a mechanism (or portal) to access the dark sector, which in turn provides us new perspectives beyond the standard model. In the high energies limit, observables like probabilities transitions and particles production rates were computed.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    New cast limit on the axion–photon interaction.Nature Physics, 13(6):584–590, 2017

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    The limits of the strongcp problem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.15093, 2022

    Wen-Yuan Ai, Juan S Cruz, Bjorn Garbrecht, and Carlos Tamarit. The limits of the strongcp problem.arXiv preprint arXiv:2205.15093, 2022

    arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Animprovedlimitontheaxion–photoncouplingfromthecastexperiment

    S Andriamonje, S Aune, D Autiero, K Barth, A Belov, B Beltrán, H Bräuninger, JM Carmona, SCebrián, JICollar, etal. Animprovedlimitontheaxion–photoncouplingfromthecastexperiment. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2007(04):010, 2007

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    A short review of loop quantum gravity.Reports on Progress in Physics, 84(4):042001, 2021

    Abhay Ashtekar and Eugenio Bianchi. A short review of loop quantum gravity.Reports on Progress in Physics, 84(4):042001, 2021. 18

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    publications@ cern

    ATLAS Collaboration atlas. publications@ cern. ch, G Aad, B Abbott, K Abeling, NJ Abicht, SH Abidi, A Aboulhorma, H Abramowicz, H Abreu, Y Abulaiti, et al. Search for short-and long- lived axion-like particles in h→aa→4γdecays with the atlas experiment at the lhc.The European Physical Journal C, 84(7):742, 2024

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Revisiting the bound on axion-photon coupling from globular clusters.Physical review letters, 113(19):191302, 2014

    Adrian Ayala, Inma Domínguez, Maurizio Giannotti, Alessandro Mirizzi, and Oscar Straniero. Revisiting the bound on axion-photon coupling from globular clusters.Physical review letters, 113(19):191302, 2014

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    light shining through a wall

    R Ballou, G Deferne, M Finger Jr, M Finger, L Flekova, J Hosek, S Kunc, K Macuchova, KA Meis- sner, P Pugnat, et al. New exclusion limits for the search of scalar and pseudoscalar axion-like particles from “light shining through a wall”

    work page

  8. [8]

    Introduction to supersymmetry.arXiv preprint hep-th/0101055, 2001

    Adel Bilal. Introduction to supersymmetry.arXiv preprint hep-th/0101055, 2001

    arXiv 2001

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    J. D. Bjorken. Electroweak Interactions.Phys. Scripta, 25:69, 1982

    1982

  2. [10]

    Neutron stars as photon double-lenses: Constraining resonant conversion into alps.Physics Letters B, 846:138238, 2023

    Kyrylo Bondarenko, Alexey Boyarsky, Josef Pradler, and Anastasia Sokolenko. Neutron stars as photon double-lenses: Constraining resonant conversion into alps.Physics Letters B, 846:138238, 2023

    2023

  3. [11]

    Collider constraints on axion-like particles.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.08971, 2021

    David d’Enterria. Collider constraints on axion-like particles.arXiv preprint arXiv:2102.08971, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Maxim Dvornikov and V. B. Semikoz. Evolution of axions in the presence of primordial magnetic fields.Phys. Rev. D, 102:123526, 12 2020

    2020

  5. [13]

    Testing predictions of the chiral anomaly in primakoff reactions at compass.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09138, 2023

    Dominik Ecker. Testing predictions of the chiral anomaly in primakoff reactions at compass.arXiv preprint arXiv:2310.09138, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Yang-mills-shaw and the non-abelian maxwell equations.Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física, 44:e20220045, 2022

    J Furtado and JA Helaÿel-Neto. Yang-mills-shaw and the non-abelian maxwell equations.Revista Brasileira de Ensino de Física, 44:e20220045, 2022

    2022

  7. [15]

    Partial-symmetries of weak interactions.Nuclear physics, 22(4):579–588, 1961

    Sheldon L Glashow. Partial-symmetries of weak interactions.Nuclear physics, 22(4):579–588, 1961

    1961

  8. [16]

    Experimental searches for the axion and axion-like particles.Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 65(1):485–514, 2015

    Peter W Graham, Igor G Irastorza, Steven K Lamoreaux, Axel Lindner, and Karl A van Bibber. Experimental searches for the axion and axion-like particles.Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 65(1):485–514, 2015

    2015

  9. [17]

    Pro- duction of axionlike particles from photon conversions in large-scale solar magnetic fields.Physical Review D, 102(12):123024, 2020

    Ersilia Guarini, Pierluca Carenza, Javier Galán, Maurizio Giannotti, and Alessandro Mirizzi. Pro- duction of axionlike particles from photon conversions in large-scale solar magnetic fields.Physical Review D, 102(12):123024, 2020

    2020

  10. [18]

    John Wiley & Sons, 2021

    John David Jackson.Classical electrodynamics. John Wiley & Sons, 2021. 19

    2021

  11. [19]

    The low-energy frontier of particle physics.Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 60(1):405–437, 2010

    Joerg Jaeckel and Andreas Ringwald. The low-energy frontier of particle physics.Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science, 60(1):405–437, 2010

    2010

  12. [20]

    T. D. Lee and C. N. Yang. Question of parity conservation in weak interactions.Phys. Rev., 104:254–258, 10 1956

    1956

  13. [21]

    Axion cosmology.Physics Reports, 643:1–79, 2016

    David JE Marsh. Axion cosmology.Physics Reports, 643:1–79, 2016

    2016

  14. [22]

    Results and future plans of the moedal experiment.arXiv preprint ar- Xiv:2111.03468, 2021

    Vasiliki A Mitsou. Results and future plans of the moedal experiment.arXiv preprint ar- Xiv:2111.03468, 2021

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Considerations on anomalous photon and z-boson self-couplings from the born–infeld weak hypercharge action.The European Physical Journal C, 82(4):327, 2022

    MJ Neves, LPR Ospedal, JA Helayël-Neto, and Patricio Gaete. Considerations on anomalous photon and z-boson self-couplings from the born–infeld weak hypercharge action.The European Physical Journal C, 82(4):327, 2022

    2022

  16. [24]

    Axions, photons and physics beyond the standard model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04100, 2024

    Jefferson Mendes Aguiar Paixao. Axions, photons and physics beyond the standard model.arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.04100, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cp conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles.Physical Review Letters, 38(25):1440, 1977

    Roberto D Peccei and Helen R Quinn. Cp conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles.Physical Review Letters, 38(25):1440, 1977

    1977

  18. [26]

    Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles.Physical Review D, 37(5):1237, 1988

    Georg Raffelt and Leo Stodolsky. Mixing of the photon with low-mass particles.Physical Review D, 37(5):1237, 1988

    1988

  19. [27]

    University of Chicago press, 1996

    Georg G Raffelt.Stars as laboratories for fundamental physics: The astrophysics of neutrinos, axions, and other weakly interacting particles. University of Chicago press, 1996

    1996

  20. [28]

    Solar constraints on hidden photons re-visited.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2013(08):034, 2013

    Javier Redondo and Georg Raffelt. Solar constraints on hidden photons re-visited.Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2013(08):034, 2013

    2013

  21. [29]

    Weak and electromagnetic interactions.Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965), 11:568–577, 1959

    Abdus Salam and John Clive Ward. Weak and electromagnetic interactions.Il Nuovo Cimento (1955-1965), 11:568–577, 1959

    1955

  22. [30]

    Photon–photon physics at the lhc and laser beam experiments, present and future.Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 120:103889, 2021

    L Schoeffel, C Baldenegro, H Hamdaoui, S Hassani, C Royon, and M Saimpert. Photon–photon physics at the lhc and laser beam experiments, present and future.Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 120:103889, 2021

    2021

  23. [31]

    Introduction to superstring theory

    John H Schwarz. Introduction to superstring theory. InTechniques and Concepts of High-Energy Physics, pages 143–187. Springer, 2001

    2001

  24. [32]

    Axion electrodynamics in topological materials.Journal of Applied Physics, 129(14), 2021

    Akihiko Sekine and Kentaro Nomura. Axion electrodynamics in topological materials.Journal of Applied Physics, 129(14), 2021

    2021

  25. [33]

    Axion-plasmon polaritons in strongly magnetized plasmas.Physical Review Letters, 120(18):181803, 2018

    H Terças, JD Rodrigues, and JT Mendonça. Axion-plasmon polaritons in strongly magnetized plasmas.Physical Review Letters, 120(18):181803, 2018. 20

    2018

  26. [34]

    Aspects of the gauge boson-gaugino mixing in a supersymmetric scenario with lorentz-symmetry violation.Physical Review D, 105(11):115006, 2022

    RC Terin, W Spalenza, H Belich, and JA Helayël-Neto. Aspects of the gauge boson-gaugino mixing in a supersymmetric scenario with lorentz-symmetry violation.Physical Review D, 105(11):115006, 2022

    2022

  27. [35]

    A model of leptons.Physical review letters, 19(21):1264, 1967

    Steven Weinberg. A model of leptons.Physical review letters, 19(21):1264, 1967

    1967

  28. [36]

    Two applications of axion electrodynamics.Phys

    Frank Wilczek. Two applications of axion electrodynamics.Phys. Rev. Lett., 58:1799–1802, 5 1987

    1987

  29. [37]

    C. S. Wu, E. Ambler, R. W. Hayward, D. D. Hoppes, and R. P. Hudson. Experimental test of parity conservation in beta decay.Phys. Rev., 105:1413–1415, 2 1957

    1957

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.