Pith.

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · arXiv:hep-ph/0506168 v1 · submitted 17 Jun 2005 · 54 references

Probing Planck scale physics with IceCube

Luis A. Anchordoqui, Haim Goldberg, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, Francis Halzen, Dan Hooper, Subir Sarkar, Thomas J. Weiler

PDF · arXiv · The abstract, sentence by sentence · Cite

The paper says

“Neutrino oscillations can be affected by decoherence induced e.g. by Planck scale suppressed interactions with the space-time foam predicted in some approaches to quantum gravity.”

more of the abstract

We study the prospects for observing such effects at IceCube, using the likely flux of TeV antineutrinos from the Cygnus spiral arm. We formulate the statistical analysis for evaluating the sensitivity to quantum decoherence in the presence of the background from atmospheric neutrinos, as well as from plausible cosmic neutrino sources. We demonstrate that IceCube will improve the sensitivity to decoherence effects of ${\cal O}(E^2/M_{\rm Pl})$ by 17 orders of magnitude over present limits and, moreover, that it can probe decoherence effects of ${\cal O}(E^3/M_{\rm Pl}^2)$ which are well beyond the reach of other experiments.

from the abstract

Pith says

Machine review · deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026 · what was read was not recorded · not checked by a person

Reviewed in 2026 with later literature in view.

It can be wrong. Challenge this review or reply to it.

Holds up, with conditions. A solid, checkable sensitivity projection whose headline numbers survive the obvious objection: the contested Cygnus flux normalization moves the kappa bounds by tens of percent, not by orders of magnitude. This line is wrong

3 major objections · 6 minor

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Are you an author? What you can do.

Not checked: figures, code, what the 54 references say.

The paper says, at §II, Eqs. (2)–(3)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 1 of 3 · major

The entire reach is anchored to the normalization C = 1.15 × 10^20 km^−2 yr^−1, obtained by fitting a single power law of index −3.1 to the AGASA Galactic-plane excess between 10^8.9 and 10^9.5 GeV. That excess is contested (HiRes reports 3.2σ, KASCADE reports isotropy up to 10^7.7 GeV), and the neutron-primary interpretation is a hypothesis rather than a measurement.

more of objection 1

The bounds in Eqs. (22)–(26) are quoted without any propagation of the uncertainty in C or in the spectral index. Because the bound depends on the signal-to-background ratio, a factor-few reduction in C weakens the κ bounds by a factor of order a few, not by orders of magnitude, so the headline survives; but the paper should state this scaling explicitly and show that the 17-order claim is robust to a factor-few flux reduction. The TeV signal is also an extrapolation of the EeV normalization down to 10^6–10^7 GeV, and the sensitivity to the assumed index should be quantified.

The paper says, at §IV, Eqs. (19)–(21)

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 2 of 3 · major

The atmospheric background is fixed at N_tr_ATM = 14 and N_sh_ATM = 47 and is not marginalized, while the diffuse astrophysical normalization x is marginalized. At TeV energies the atmospheric flux carries a substantial normalization uncertainty, and the quoted bounds are given to two significant figures without an error bar.

more of objection 2

The paper should either marginalize the atmospheric normalization alongside x or demonstrate explicitly that the bounds in Eqs. (22)–(26) are insensitive to it; otherwise the precision implied by the two-figure bounds overstates what a projection can support.

The paper says, at §IV, Eqs. (16)–(17) and Fig. 4

The review did not quote this passage.

Pith says: Objection 3 of 3 · major

The paper presents a joint track-plus-shower analysis, but the shower channel is only weakly sensitive to decoherence: the contained CC shower rate depends on 1 − P(νe→νµ), which changes by roughly 14% between the standard-oscillation and fully decohered cases, so with 25 signal showers the shower channel contributes little direct decoherence information and mainly constrains the normalization x.

more of objection 3

The quoted bounds therefore derive predominantly from the track channel. The paper should state this explicitly and quantify the relative contributions of the two channels, so that the reader understands what the two-degree-of-freedom fit in Fig. 4 is actually measuring.

6 minor objections

The paper says, at Eq. (10)

Pith says: minor objection 1 of 6

The first line repeats the pair Pνe→νµ = Pνµ→νe twice; this appears to be a typographical error in the antineutrino/neutrino labels and should be corrected.

The paper says, at Abstract vs §I

Pith says: minor objection 2 of 6

The abstract states a 17-order improvement while §I states “4 to 17 orders.” The 17 refers to the n = 2 comparison with Super-Kamiokande and the 4 to the n = −1 lifetime comparison with solar data; the abstract should say “up to 17 orders” or specify the case.

show 4 more

The paper says, at §V, Eq. (28)

Pith says: minor objection 3 of 6

The n = 3 case is not derivable from the operator analysis and is presented as heuristic. The abstract's statement that this case is “well beyond the reach of other experiments” should be qualified accordingly.

The paper says, at §III

Pith says: minor objection 4 of 6

The simplification γ3 = γ8 = γ is acknowledged as a device to exhibit the 1:1:1 signature. It would strengthen the paper to state, at least qualitatively, how the bounds in Eqs. (22)–(26) would change if the two eigenvalues were allowed to differ.

The paper says, at Fig. 4 caption

Pith says: minor objection 5 of 6

The caption should state explicitly that the contours assume N_tr_obs = 62, N_sh_obs = 72, and no diffuse flux, since these assumptions define the plotted sensitivity.

The paper says, at §II, Eq. (4)

Pith says: minor objection 6 of 6

The delta-function integration and the neutron rest-frame neutrino distribution are compressed; a short explicit summary of the kinematics would help readers unfamiliar with the neutron-decay treatment.

What would settle it

Recompute Eqs. 22-26 with C reduced by a factor of 2 (and separately with the J2032+4130 normalization fixed at the pgamma value, x = 1/4, instead of marginalized). If kappa_2 moves by more than a factor of ~1.5, the reader's concern lands and the 17-orders claim is fragile; if it moves by ~40% as the N^{-1/2} scaling predicts, the concern is a bookkeeping omission, not a threat to the headline.

from the skeptic's reading

How the review went

4 readings by deepseek-v4.1-flash · 13 Nov 2026

  1. Reader holds up, with conditions confidence high
  2. Skeptic partly agrees 2 min 40 s · 18,163 tokens read, 8,898 written
  3. Editor wrote the verdict above 39 s · 19,369 tokens read, 2,112 written
  4. Referee minor revision: 3 major objections, 6 minor 4 min 52 s · 18,677 tokens read, 15,916 written

Not run on this paper: the simulated authors' defence.

Pith did not check this review's objections against the paper.

The review in full

The review in brief, machine-written

Worth your time, with one correction to the usual objection. The genuinely new content is the joint track-plus-shower Poisson analysis with marginalization over a diffuse-flux normalization (Eqs. 19-21) and the explicit E3/M_Pl2 reach in Eq. 26. The Cygnus neutron-decay beam and the three-flavor Lindblad treatment are recycled from the authors' own Refs. [7], [8], [33], and they say so plainly. What they add is the machinery that turns a source model into a number a referee can check, and it does check: 48 tracks and 25 showers against 14 and 47 atmospheric, standard chi-square, standard oscillation parameters from Ref. [34]. They are also honest up front that a 1:1:1 flavor ratio would not by itself prove decoherence. That is the right thing to say and they say it early rather than burying it in the conclusions. The soft spot everyone will name is the flux normalization: C in Eq. 3 is fixed to the 4-sigma AGASA Galactic-plane excess, which HiRes sees at 3.2 sigma and KASCADE does not see at all. Real, but the consequence is usually overstated. Near gamma = 0 the track rate goes as 212(1/3 + f e−gamma d), so the bound scales as N−1/2; a factor of two in the flux shifts kappa by about 1.4, roughly 0.15 orders of magnitude. The 17-orders claim survives. The pp versus pgamma ambiguity in Fig. 3 is already absorbed by the free normalization x and marginalized, so that concern does not land. The gamma_3 = gamma_8 simplification is asserted rather than argued, but both exponentials in Eq. 9 drive the asymptotic ratio to 1:1:1 anyway, so it is benign for the qualitative signature. Two things I would actually ask for in revision. First, the bounds in Eqs. 22-26 carry no error band from C; a 40% effect should be stated where the numbers are, not left to the reader. Second, the dimensional bookkeeping looks off: Eq. 12 requires kappa_n in GeV1−n, so kappa_2 should be GeV−1 and kappa_3 GeV−2, yet all five are labelled GeV. Cosmetic, but it is the kind of thing that makes a careful reader distrust the table. Send it out. The physics is standard, the statistics are appropriate, and the E3/M_Pl2 target is a real new handle on Planck-scale physics.

The strongest objection

The central claim (abstract:s3) is a sensitivity projection: IceCube's 90% CL bounds on kappa_n in Eqs. 22-26 beat Super-K/K2K by up to 17 orders. The reader's weakest_assumption correctly identifies the load-bearing input — the Cygnus OB2 antineutrino flux, fixed by normalizing a single power law (index -3.1) to the contested AGASA Galactic-plane excess (Eqs. 2-3, C = 1.15e20 km^-2 yr^-1). If that normalization is wrong, the signal shrinks. But the reader's stated consequence — 'the bounds weaken roughly in proportion' — is quantitatively wrong. The bound on gamma comes from distinguishing the observed track/shower ratio from 1:1:1 within Poisson statistics. Near gamma=0, N_tr(gamma) = 212(1/3 + f e^{-gamma d}), so dN_tr/dgamma is about -48 d, and sigma_N is about sqrt(62). Hence gamma_bound scales as sqrt(N)/(N d), i.e. N^{-1/2}. A factor-2 reduction in C therefore shifts kappa_2 by only sqrt(2) ~ 1.4, about 0.15 orders of magnitude, not 17. The headline survives. Two further points: (i) the pp versus pgamma ambiguity in Fig. 3 is already absorbed by the free normalization x in Eqs. 19-20, which is marginalized in extracting Eqs. 22-26, so that sub-concern does not land; (ii) the gamma_3 = gamma_8 simplification is benign for the qualitative signature, since both exponentials in Eq. (9) drive the asymptotic ratio to 1:1:1 regardless. What remains genuinely unquantified is the statistical error on C itself, but that is a ~40% effect on kappa, not a threat to the order-of-magnitude claim. A cosmetic error: the units in Eqs. 22-26 are labelled 'GeV' for all n, but Eq. (12) requires GeV^{1-n} (GeV^-1 for n=2, GeV^-2 for n=3).

The paper's chain is: neutron spectrum normalized to AGASA (Eqs. 2-3) -> antineutrino flux (Eq. 4) -> oscillation plus decoherence probabilities (Eqs. 9-10) -> IceCube track and shower rates (Eqs. 13-17) -> Poisson chi-square with marginalization over the diffuse-source normalization x (Eqs. 19-21) -> bounds (Eqs. 22-26). I checked the numbers: with d = 1.7 kpc ~ 2.7e35 GeV^-1 and a ~10-15% statistical precision on the flavor ratio, gamma_bound ~ 4e-37 GeV, matching the quoted kappa_0 = 3.2e-36 GeV to within a factor of ten; the n=2 and n=3 entries are similarly self-consistent. The calculation is sound. The reader's concern is the right one in kind: the Cygnus flux is a hypothesis, not a measurement, and the kappa bounds carry no error band from C. But the reader mis-scales the effect. Because the constraint comes from Poisson fluctuations on a fixed event sample, the bound on gamma scales as N^{-1/2}, not linearly with flux. A factor-of-2 flux error is therefore a ~40% shift in kappa, which does not touch the 17-orders claim. The pp/pgamma ambiguity is likewise already handled: x is a free parameter in Eqs. 19-20 and is marginalized in extracting Eqs. 22-26, so the pgamma case (x = 1/4) is inside the allowed range. The gamma_3 = gamma_8 simplification is stated and is benign for the qualitative 1:1:1 signature, since both exponentials in Eq. (9) vanish asymptotically regardless of whether the two rates are equal. The only real defect I found is cosmetic: the units in Eqs. 22-26 are labelled 'GeV' for every n, whereas Eq. (12) requires GeV^{1-n}. That does not affect the physics. CONDITIONAL remains the right verdict for a sensitivity projection whose reach depends on an assumed source, but the reader's stated reason — that the bounds weaken in proportion to the flux — overstates the fragility. The concern is a missing error band, not a threat to the headline.

The referee's report

If the Cygnus OB2 flux model is correct, this is a genuinely novel and powerful probe of Planck-scale physics, converting IceCube into a quantum-gravity instrument with reach far beyond Super-Kamiokande and K2K. The statistical framework is standard and appropriate, and the paper is explicit that the bounds are sensitivity projections rather than measurements. The result is falsifiable: a measured track/shower ratio inconsistent with the standard 5:2:2 expectation would either reveal decoherence or constrain the source model. The main caveat is that the reach scales with a flux normalization inferred from a contested cosmic-ray excess.

Pith's reading of the paper (a machine's summary, not the authors')

The paper asks whether IceCube, the kilometer-scale Antarctic neutrino telescope then under construction, can detect or bound quantum decoherence caused by Planck-scale spacetime foam. Its proposed lever is a beam of TeV electron antineutrinos from neutron beta decay in the Cygnus OB2 star-forming region: standard oscillations would deliver a non-democratic flavor mix, while decoherence would relax it toward $1:1:1$ over 1.7 kpc. The authors build an open-quantum-system decoherence model, fold it into IceCube track and shower event rates with atmospheric and astrophysical backgrounds, and derive projected confidence limits on the decoherence coefficients. If the flux estimate holds, IceCube would improve existing limits by many orders of magnitude and reach energy dependences beyond any current experiment, making an astrophysical neutrino beam a quantum-gravity probe.

What carries the argument. Two pieces carry the argument. First, the Lindblad open-quantum-system equation reduces, after averaging over rapid oscillations and taking diagonal Gell-Mann operators, to $P(nu_e to nu_alpha) = 1/3 + f e^{-gamma d}$; the coefficients $f$ are fixed by standard three-neutrino mixing, and $gamma = kappa_n (E_nu/{rm GeV})^n$. Second, the Cygnus OB2 antineutrino flux is normalized by fitting a neutron spectrum $dF_n/dE_n propto E_n^{-3.1} exp[-d/(c Gamma_n tau_n)]$ to the AGASA Galactic-plane excess, then propagating neutron $\beta$ decay to $bar nu_e$. IceCube's track and shower counts, including atmospheric and HEGRA-derived backgrounds, are converted into Poisson $chi^2$ contours in the flux-normalization and decoherence plane.

Core claim. The central claim is a sensitivity projection, not a detection: for a decoherence rate $gamma = kappa_n (E_nu/{rm GeV})^n$, 15 years of IceCube data from the Cygnus direction would bound $kappa_0$ below $3.2times 10^{-36}$ GeV at 90% CL and $kappa_2$ below $2.0times 10^{-44}$ GeV, compared with Super-Kamiokande and K2K limits of $3.5times 10^{-23}$ GeV and $9.0times 10^{-28}$ GeV. The authors also quote $kappa_3 le 3.0times 10^{-47}$ GeV, corresponding to an $E^3/M_{rm Pl}^2$ behavior that they argue is inaccessible to existing experiments. The reach comes from distance times energy: a 1.7 kpc baseline and TeV antineutrinos make tiny decoherence coefficients accumulate into observable flavor changes.

The premise it rests on. The projected reach rests on the Cygnus OB2 antineutrino flux being as large as the AGASA Galactic-plane neutron-excess normalization implies; if that contested excess is not a neutron signal, or the true flux is lower, the quoted $kappa$ bounds weaken roughly in proportion.

If the paper is right (Pith's inferences, not the authors')

With 15 years of exposure and the assumed Cygnus flux, the projected 90% CL bounds range from $kappa_{-1} le 1.0times 10^{-34}$ GeV to $kappa_3 le 3.0times 10^{-47}$ GeV, with the $n=2$ case at $kappa_2 le 2.0times 10^{-44}$ GeV.

The $n=-1$ bound can be read as a neutrino-lifetime limit, $tau_{bar nu_e}/m_{bar nu_e} > 10^{34}$ GeV$^{-2}$ (about $6.5$ s eV$^{-1}$), roughly four orders of magnitude better than solar-neutrino limits.

For an $E^3/M_{rm Pl}^2$ decoherence law, IceCube would reach a dimensionless coefficient $tilde kappa lesssim 3.0times 10^{-7}$ at 99% CL, below the natural $O(1)$ expectation.

A measured flavor ratio different from $1:1:1$ from the Cygnus direction would bound the decoherence scale; a ratio near $1:1:1$ would be consistent with strong decoherence but would not by itself prove it.

The analysis marginalizes over a single flux-normalization parameter tied to the HEGRA source; in practice the Cygnus flux and the decoherence coefficient are correlated, so an independent hadronic gamma-ray or neutrino-flux measurement would sharpen or weaken the bound more than the quoted one-parameter contours suggest.

Because the signal is a deficit of $bar nu_mu$ tracks and an excess of showers relative to standard oscillations, a joint track-shower fit with better shower angular resolution would improve the reach without requiring a larger source flux.

The same formalism could be applied to other Galactic neutron sources, but the distance weighting means nearby sources such as Orion or the Gould belt would probe smaller $gamma d$ and therefore weaker $kappa$ for the same flux.

Check this review

Pith stored no record of this review's passes and took no fingerprint of it. Reviews made by code from 13 Nov 2026 on carry both.

How often reviews like this one are right

Reviews like this one: written by deepseek-v4.1-flash, where what was read was not recorded.

How often objections from reviews like this one are right: not yet measured

Every value above, in the review's public record (JSON)

Reviews by people

This review was written by a machine. No person has reviewed this paper on Pith yet. A scientist listed on Pith can review it for a fee, and their review is published here whatever it concludes.

Request a human review

How Pith checks papers · The full audit of this paper

The paper

Abstract

Neutrino oscillations can be affected by decoherence induced e.g. by Planck scale suppressed interactions with the space-time foam predicted in some approaches to quantum gravity. We study the prospects for observing such effects at IceCube, using the likely flux of TeV antineutrinos from the Cygnus spiral arm. We formulate the statistical analysis for evaluating the sensitivity to quantum decoherence in the presence of the background from atmospheric neutrinos, as well as from plausible cosmic neutrino sources. We demonstrate that IceCube will improve the sensitivity to decoherence effects of ${\cal O}(E^2/M_{\rm Pl})$ by 17 orders of magnitude over present limits and, moreover, that it can probe decoherence effects of ${\cal O}(E^3/M_{\rm Pl}^2)$ which are well beyond the reach of other experiments.

The paper's own sentences, arranged, kept beside the review and separate from it. Each label is drawn from a closed vocabulary; the number beside it is the probability the classifier gave that label. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

abstract compiled · 2026-09-23

The authors' main claim, as the classifier picked it out 1.00

“We demonstrate that IceCube will improve the sensitivity to decoherence effects of ${\cal O}(E^2/M_{\rm Pl})$ by 17 orders of magnitude over present limits and, moreover, that it can probe decoherence effects of ${\cal O}(E^3/M_{\rm Pl}^2)$ which are well beyond the reach of other experiments.”

How the main claim is stated: asserted 1.00

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.07 · states limitation 0.11 · human participants 0.02 · controlled comparison 0.23 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.97 · compares with prior results 0.93 · mentions code or data availability 0.02

The abstract, sentence by sentence

This table labels the abstract only (arXiv listing abstract v1). The number is the probability the classifier gave the label.

SentenceRoleThe authors' own workStates the main conclusionStrength
Neutrino oscillations can be affected by decoherence induced e.g. by Planck scale suppressed interactions with the space-time foam predicted in some approaches to quantum gravity. background 1.00 0.04 0.03 hedged possibility 0.88
We study the prospects for observing such effects at IceCube, using the likely flux of TeV antineutrinos from the Cygnus spiral arm. contribution 0.85 0.68 0.03 asserted 0.48
We formulate the statistical analysis for evaluating the sensitivity to quantum decoherence in the presence of the background from atmospheric neutrinos, as well as from plausible cosmic neutrino sources. method 0.94 0.87 0.03 asserted 0.90
We demonstrate that IceCube will improve the sensitivity to decoherence effects of ${\cal O}(E^2/M_{\rm Pl})$ by 17 orders of magnitude over present limits and, moreover, that it can probe decoherence effects of ${\cal O}(E^3/M_{\rm Pl}^2)$ which are well beyond the reach of other experiments. result 1.00 0.91 0.93 asserted 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 0.61 · evidence from simulation or computation 0.52

What was examined, and what was not

Sources read

  • arXiv listing abstract v1

Not examined

  • full text
  • figures and tables
  • references and citing sentences
  • relations to other papers

Levels run

  • P abstract

Not run

  • S sections
  • T body sentences
  • C citations
  • R cross-paper relations

How the labels were made

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 3,785 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. This record as JSON

Figures (4)
Figure 1 of the paper
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Skymap of correlated event excess significance (
Figure 2 of the paper
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The integrated neutron flux expected from Cygnus
Figure 3 of the paper
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Integrated flux of
Figure 4 of the paper
Figure 4. FIG. 4: IceCube’s sensitivity to quantum decoherence assum

Figures are the authors', reproduced from the paper.

References (54)
  1. [7] D. Hooper, D. Morgan and E. Winstanley, Phys. Lett. B 609, 206 (2005) [arXiv:hep-ph/0410094]; D. Hooper, D. Morgan and E. Winstanley, arXiv:hep-ph/0506091 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [8] L. A. Anchordoqui, H. Goldberg, F. Halzen and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Lett. B 593, 42 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0311002] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [33] A. M. Gago, E. M. Santos, W. J. C. Teves and R. Zukanovich Funchal, arXiv:hep-ph/0208166 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [34] M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, arXiv:hep-ph/0410030 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [1] For reviews, see S. Sarkar, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 17, 1025 (2002); [arXiv:gr-qc/0204092]. L. Smolin, arXiv:hep-th/0303185; F. W. Stecker, New Astron. Rev. 48, 437 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0304527]; G. Amelino- Camelia, C. Lammerzahl, A. Macias and H. Muller, AIP Conf. Proc. 758, 30... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  6. [2] S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 87, 395 (1982); For a review, see L. J. Garay, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 14, 4079 (1999) [arXiv:gr-qc/9911002] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [3] E. Lisi, A. Marrone and D. Montanino, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1166 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0002053]; G. L. Fogli, E. Lisi, A. Marrone and D. Montanino, Phys. Rev. D 67, 093006 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0303064] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [4] Y. Fukuda et al. [Super-Kamiokande Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 1562 (1998) [arXiv:hep-ex/9807003] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [5] M. H. Ahn et al. [K2K Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 041801 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ex/0212007] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  10. [6] J. R. Ellis, J. S. Hagelin, D. V. Nanopoulos and M. Sred- nicki, Nucl. Phys. B 241, 381 (1984); J. Bernabeu, N. E. Mavromatos, J. Papavassiliou and A. Waldron- Lauda, arXiv:hep-ph/0506025 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [9] G. L. Cassiday et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 62, 383 (1989) on Pith
  12. [10] M. Teshima et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 1628 (1990) on Pith
  13. [11] A. Borione et al. [CASA-MIA Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 55, 1714 (1997) [arXiv:astro-ph/9611117] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [12] G. Maier et al. , Proc. 28th International Cosmic Ray Conference (ICRC 2003, Tsukuba, Japan) on Pith
  15. [13] G. Lindblad, Commun. Math. Phys. 48, 119 (1976) on Pith
  16. [14] J. Ahrens et al. [IceCube Collaboration], Astropart. Phys. 20, 507 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0305196] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [15] F. A. Aharonian, A. Akhperjanian, M. Beilicke, Y. Uchiyama and T. Takahashi, Astron. Astrophys. 393, L37 (2002) [arXiv:astro-ph/0207528] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  18. [16] F. Aharonian et al. [HEGRA Collaboration], arXiv:astro-ph/0501667 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [17] L. Anchordoqui, T. Paul, S. Reucroft and J. Swain, Int. J . Mod. Phys. A 18, 2229 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0206072] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [18] J. Knodlseder, astro-ph/0007442 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
show 34 more
  1. [19] J. Knodlseder, M. Cervino, J. M. L. Duigou, G. Meynet, D. Schaerer and P. von Ballmoos, Astron. Astrophys. 390, 945 (2002) [arXiv:astro-ph/0206045] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  2. [20] Y. Butt et. al., Astrophys. J. 597, 494 (2003) [arXiv:astro-ph/0302342] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  3. [21] D. F. Torres, E. Domingo-Santamaria and G. E. Romero, Astrophys. J. 601, L75 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0312128] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  4. [22] N. Hayashida et al. [AGASA Collaboration], Astropart. Phys. 10, 303 (1999) [arXiv:astro-ph/9807045] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  5. [23] M. Teshima et al. , Proc. 27th International Cosmic Ray Conference (Copernicus Gesellschaft, 2001) p.341 on Pith
  6. [24] D. J. Bird et al. [HIRES Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 511, 739 (1999) [arXiv:astro-ph/9806096] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  7. [25] T. Antoni et al. [KASCADE Collaboration], arXiv:astro-ph/0312375 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  8. [26] M. S. E. Roberts, R. W. Romani and N. Kawai, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 133, 451 (2001) [arXiv:astro-ph/0012304] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  9. [27] To produce the highest energy neutrons (with energy ≲ 109.2 GeV) via photodisintegration of medium mass 11 (say, A = 10 − 20) nuclei, one needs primary parti- cles with energies ≲ 1010.2 GeV. For a falling spec- trum ∝ E−3CR, the medium mass nucleus population at 1010.2 GeV is... on Pith
  10. [28] J. Ahrens [AMANDA Collaboration], Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 071102 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0309585] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  11. [29] J. G. Learned and S. Pakvasa, Astropart. Phys. 3, 267 (1995) [arXiv:hep-ph/9405296] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  12. [30] F. Benatti and H. Narnhofer, Lett. Math. Phys. 15, 325 (1988) on Pith
  13. [31] T. Banks, L. Susskind and M. E. Peskin, Nucl. Phys. B 244, 125 (1984). J. Liu, arXiv:hep-th/9301082 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  14. [32] A particular sub-class of Lindblad operators satisfyi ng bj = λjH, (where λj are c-number constants) ensures that the purity of state vectors is preserved during evo- lution: S. L. Adler, Phys. Rev. D 62, 117901 (2000) [arXiv:hep-ph/0005220]. In this paper we do not consid- er... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  15. [35] K. Miknaitis [the SNO Collaboration], arXiv:hep-ex/0505071 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  16. [36] E. Andres et al. [AMANDA Collaboration], Astropart. Phys. 13, 1 (2000) [arXiv:astro-ph/9906203] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  17. [37] J. Abraham et al. [Auger Collaboration], Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 523, 50 (2004) on Pith
  18. [38] J. Ahrens et al. [IceCube Collaboration], Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 118, 388 (2003) [arXiv:astro-ph/0209556] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  19. [39] M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, F. Halzen and M. Maltoni, arXiv:hep-ph/0502223 on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  20. [40] M. Ackermann [AMANDA Collaboration], Astropart. Phys. 22, 127 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0405218] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  21. [41] M. Honda, T. Kajita, K. Kasahara and S. Mi- dorikawa, Phys. Rev. D 70, 043008 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0404457] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  22. [42] L. V. Volkova, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 31, 784 (1980) [Yad. Fiz. 31, 1510 (1980)] on Pith
  23. [43] P. Gondolo, G. Ingelman and M. Thunman, Astropart. Phys. 5, 309 (1996) [arXiv:hep-ph/9505417] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  24. [44] J. Ahrens et al. [AMANDA Collaboration], Phys. Rev. D 67, 012003 (2003) [arXiv:astro-ph/0206487] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  25. [45] L. A. Anchordoqui, H. Goldberg, F. Halzen and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Lett. B 600, 202 (2004) [arXiv:astro-ph/0404387] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  26. [46] L. A. Anchordoqui, H. Goldberg, F. Halzen and T. J. Weiler, arXiv:hep-ph/0410003; M. Ahlers, L. A. An- chordoqui, H. Goldberg, F. Halzen, A. Ringwald and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. D (to be published) [arXiv:astro-ph/0503229] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  27. [47] This includes the famous microquasar Cygnus X-3, for which HEGRA Collaboration reported [16] an upper limit an upper limit for steady emission of Fγ (Eγ > 0.7 TeV) = 1 .7 × 10−13 cm−2 s−1 on Pith
  28. [48] S. Baker and R. D. Cousins, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A 221, 437 (1984) on Pith
  29. [49] A. S. Davydov, Quantum Mechanics 2nd Edition, (Perg- amon Press, 1976). p.438 on Pith
  30. [50] J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos and E. Winstanley, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12, 243 (1997) [arXiv:gr-qc/9602011]; J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos and D. V. Nanopoulos, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12, 1759 (1997) [arXiv:hep-th/9704169] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  31. [51] V. D. Barger, J. G. Learned, S. Pakvasa and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 2640 (1999) [arXiv:astro-ph/9810121] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  32. [52] J. F. Beacom and N. F. Bell, Phys. Rev. D 65, 113009 (2002) [arXiv:hep-ph/0204111] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  33. [53] J. F. Beacom, N. F. Bell, D. Hooper, S. Pakvasa and T. J. Weiler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 181301 (2003) [arXiv:hep-ph/0211305] on PithPith's reviewarXiv
  34. [54] There are other possible candidate sources for antineu - trinos from neutron β-decay, such as the Orion OB asso- ciation at ∼ 450 pc from Earth [ C. Briceno, N. Calvet, J. Hernandez, A. K. Vivas, L. Hartmann, J. J. Downes and P. Berlind, arXiv:astro-ph/0410521], and the Gould ... on PithPith's reviewarXiv
Cited by 16 Pith papers

Reviewed papers on Pith that cite this one. The full citation record

  1. Visible inelasticity as a probe of tau flavor content of astrophysical neutrinos hep-ph · May 2026
  2. Design and Sensitivity of the Radio Neutrino Observatory in Greenland (RNO-G) astro-ph.IM · Oct 2020
  3. New Search for Monochromatic Neutrinos from Dark Matter Decay hep-ph · Jun 2015
  4. Theoretically palatable flavor combinations of astrophysical neutrinos astro-ph.HE · Jun 2015
  5. Spectral analysis of the high-energy IceCube neutrinos astro-ph.HE · Feb 2015
  6. Vanishing Dimensions and Planar Events at the LHC hep-ph · Mar 2010
  7. Astrophysical neutrinos flavored with Beyond the Standard Model physics hep-ph · Jul 2017
  8. Non-standard neutrino interactions in the Earth and the flavor of astrophysical neutrinos hep-ph · May 2016
  9. Analysis of the 4-year IceCube high-energy starting events astro-ph.HE · May 2016
  10. Probing BSM Neutrino Physics with Flavor and Spectral Distortions: Prospects for Future High-Energy Neutrino Telescopes astro-ph.HE · Dec 2015
  11. Probing damping effects in neutrino oscillations with 207 days of JUNO data hep-ph · Jun 2026
  12. Energy-independent new physics in the flavour ratios of high-energy astrophysical neutrinos hep-ph · Jan 2010
  13. Fundamental Physics with High-Energy Cosmic Neutrinos astro-ph.HE · Mar 2019
  14. Cosmic Neutrino Pevatrons: A Brand New Pathway to Astronomy, Astrophysics, and Particle Physics astro-ph.HE · Dec 2013
  15. High-Energy and Ultra-High-Energy Neutrinos hep-ph · Mar 2022
  16. Status of non-standard neutrino interactions hep-ph · Sep 2012
How the literature uses it

34 arXiv papers cite this in 57 sentences

Each citing sentence is taken from the citing paper's LaTeX source and typed by Pith's classifier. A label appears at probability 0.8 or more (0.95 for support), a contest at 0.7 or more; the quoted words are the citing authors'. How each label was checked · JSON

Papers citing it · 41 sentences without a confident label

Builds on it 1 paper
Uses its data or values 1 paper
  • In the ICE-CUBE case [ref] , the inverse energy $n=-1$ decoherence coefficient $γ_0$ in the terminology ([ref]), is found to be (at a 90% CL) $γ_0 < 10^-34$ GeV, which will improve the existing sensitivity by eight orders of magnitude, implying, for a constant Cauchy-Lorentz distribution, the limit $γ< 10^-13$.

    Neutrino oscillations in a stochastic model for space-time foam · Conclusions and Outlook · 0.98

Cites it as background 14 papers
  • The other QG sensitive observables at neutrino telescopes are the reconstructed neutrino flux ratios [ref] .

    Quantum Gravitational Decoherence in the 3 Neutrino Flavor Scheme · Flavor Ratios at Neutrino Telescopes · 0.86

  • There is a rich phenomenology of such decoherence models, especially in the context of particle physics [ref] , using sensitive particle probes, such as neutron interferometry, neutral mesons [ref] or neutrinos [ref] .

    CPT Violation and Decoherence in Quantum Gravity · Introduction: arguments in favour of and against Matter Decoherence in Quantum Gravity · 0.84

  • Neutrino decoherence is often represented using an open quantum system formalism [ref] considering both the neutrino and its environment, and beyond neutrinos this formalism has also be employed to study decoherence resulting from gravitational sources more generally [ref] .

    Neutrino signals of lightcone fluctuations resulting from fluctuating space-time · Analytic decoherence operator · 0.92

Challenges and discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, or challenge this review formally: a challenge becomes a permanent entry in this paper's record, and its decision is published here.

No comments yet.

Sign in to comment