REVIEW 3 cited by
Supernova and neutron-star limits on large extra dimensions reexamined
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
read the original abstract
In theories with large extra dimensions, supernova (SN) cores are powerful sources of Kaluza-Klein (KK) gravitons. A large fraction of these massive particles are gravitationally retained by the newly born neutron star (NS). The subsequent slow KK decays produce potentially observable gamma rays and heat the NS. We here show that the back-absorption of the gravitationally trapped KK gravitons does not significantly change our previous limits. We calculate the graviton emission rate in a nuclear medium by combining the low-energy classical bremsstrahlung rate with detailed-balancing arguments. This approach reproduces the previous thermal emission rate, but it is much simpler and allows for a calculation of the absorption rate by a trivial phase-space transformation. We derive systematically the dependence of the SN and NS limits on the number of extra dimensions.
Forward citations
Cited by 3 Pith papers
-
Analysis of inflationary models in higher-dimensional uniform inflation
In (D+4)-dimensional uniform inflation the spectral index and tensor-to-scalar ratio are ns=1-(D+6)ε+2η and r=8(D+2)ε, which excludes D≥2 for the five models studied while allowing D=1 in the b0k >> 1 branch.
-
Two Micron-Size Dark Dimensions
Two micron-size dark dimensions are consistent with observations only if the compact space has no isometries and the normalcy temperature is fine-tuned to about 2 MeV.
-
A multi-axion model of inflation and dark matter
A 300-mode Kaluza-Klein axion tower is proposed as a unified inflaton and dark-matter sector, but the lightest state's quoted lifetime contradicts the paper's own decay-rate formula.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.