Fast Neutron - Mirror Neutron Oscillation and Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays

Luis Bento; Zurab Berezhiani

REVIEW

Fast Neutron - Mirror Neutron Oscillation and Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays

Zurab Berezhiani, Luis Bento

High Energy Physics - Phenomenology · Submitted 24 Feb 2006 · 28 references

Pith's verdict: A clever but speculative mechanism for GZK suppression via n-n' oscillation; the authors' own magnetic-field caveat is load-bearing and likely fatal under realistic IGMF.

T0 · AI review

How this review was made: An AI referee (deepseek-v4-flash) read the paper on August 28, 2026 and answered a fixed list of questions about it. T0 is the starting level every paper gets. The levels describe how deeply Pith has checked the paper, never the authors.

T0 AI review An AI read the paper and answered a fixed list of questions.
T1 Audit Automatic checks that the references and files the paper relies on exist and match.
T2 Compute The paper's code or calculations re-run with the same results.
T3 Formal statement The claims written out in a formal math language a computer can read.
T4 Proof Those claims proved, and the proof checked by computer.

How Pith checks papers →

· 3 major objections · 4 minor · Ask about this paper · The compiled record · Read the full review →

Challenge this review Comment (0) Read on arXiv ↗

Cite ▾

arXiv IDhep-ph/0602227 (version 1)

Pith IDRJ7WQVZQ, Pith's permanent record of this paper and its review

CitationLuis Bento, Zurab Berezhiani. "Fast Neutron - Mirror Neutron Oscillation and Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays." arXiv:hep-ph/0602227 (2006). https://pith.science/paper/RJ7WQVZQ

Cite this reviewBibTeX for Pith's review of this paper

Claim paper

Why Pith says this

Highlight any text to comment on it.

Editor's note

read the letter

Colleague,

This paper is a genuinely new idea in an old bottle. The cycle p -> n -> n' -> p' -> p, using fast n-n' oscillation to let super-GZK protons travel far in the mirror sector, is not in the earlier n-n' literature. The simple scaling l'_p = x^{-3} l_p is correct, and the internal arithmetic checks out. The authors also deserve credit for flagging the magnetic-field suppression explicitly rather than burying it.

The soft spots are real and load-bearing. The n-n' oscillation of a 10^20 eV neutron is quenched by transverse magnetic fields above ~10^{-15} G, unless the mirror field B' tracks B to high precision. The paper hopes that resonant crossings at domain boundaries or a correlated magnetogenesis in both sectors can save it. The stress-test note is persuasive in showing that neither works quantitatively. For a domain reversal with B_eff ~ 10^{-9} G and L_c ~ 1 Mpc, the Landau-Zener sweep rate is ~10^3 times delta m^2, so the crossing is strongly non-adiabatic. The conversion probability integrated over the neutron decay path is ~10^{-3}, not w = 1/2. So resonant conversion rescues you only for B_eff below ~10^{-12} G, still three orders of magnitude below the observational upper bound. That means the central mechanism requires either intergalactic fields far smaller than what we have reason to expect, or exact B=B' compensation at 100 Mpc scales, which is an unsupported conjecture.

The paper also tunes x to 0.3-0.5 to make the effective distance match the BL Lac correlation, so it is not a parameter-free prediction. And the cosmic-ray treatment is deliberately qualitative; no one should take the spectrum predictions literally.

But this is not a crank paper. It is internally consistent, honest about its caveats, and it gives the reader a clear picture of what would have to be true for the mechanism to work. The tabletop n-n' searches and the study of very weak intergalactic magnetic fields are the obvious testable outcomes. I would send it to peer review: a good referee will push for a more careful treatment of the field-suppression and a real UHECR simulation for representative x and tau. It's a paper for astroparticle theorists and mirror-world aficionados, not a broad audience, but it deserves a serious referee rather than a desk rejection.

Referee report

Significance

The scaling arguments in Section 3 are clean and internally consistent: the relations l'_p = x^{-3} l_p and E'_th = x^{-1} E_th follow straightforwardly from the temperature rescaling of the mirror CMB, and Eq. (10) for R_eff is a simple and instructive result. The paper also correctly stresses that the mirror sector leaves an observable signature in the n–n′ disappearance channel that could be tested in tabletop experiments. However, the astrophysical claim is conditional on several unproven inputs: τ ~ 1 s, x ≈ 0.3–0.5, a conversion probability w near 1/2, the existence of sufficiently strong mirror UHECR sources, and most importantly intergalactic magnetic fields below ~10^{-15} G or a coherent B = B′ cancellation. The magnetic-field requirement is the weakest point; the paper's own caveat 'One can object whether this is realistic' identifies the load-bearing uncertainty. As it stands, the manuscript is a suggestive scenario rather than an established explanation of the super-GZK excess.

Major objections (3)

[Section 3, magnetic-field suppression paragraph] The central mechanism requires |B_tr − B′_tr| ≲ 10^{-15} G for E ≈ 10^{20} eV because the rest-frame magnetic potential is V = γ μ B_tr with γ ≈ 10^{11} and δm ≈ 6×10^{-16} eV. The observational bound quoted in the paper is B < 10^{-9} G, six orders of magnitude weaker. The two fallback arguments are not quantified. A Landau–Zener estimate for a domain boundary with B_eff = 10^{-9} G and L_c = 1 Mpc gives a sweep rate d(ΔV)/dt ≈ γ^2 μ c (2B_eff/L_c) ≈ 8×10^{-28} eV^2, about 2×10^3 times larger than δm^2, so the crossing is strongly non-adiabatic. The accumulated conversion probability over a neutron decay path is roughly π δm^2 L_dec/(γ^2 μ B_eff) ≈ 10^{-3} for B_eff = 10^{-9} G, far below the w ≈ 1/2 assumed in Eq. (10). Thus the mechanism survives only if intergalactic fields in voids are below ~10^{-15} G or if ordinary and mirror fields cancel coherently, neither of which is established. This is a load-bearing point that requires either a quantitative treatment of the realistic field distribution or a clear rephrasing of the result as valid only under the B < 10^{-15} G condition.
[Section 3, flux-compensation assumption after Eq. (10)] The paper explains the observed super-GZK flux only by invoking an additional, unquantified assumption: that mirror UHECR sources exist with fluxes 'order of magnitude stronger' than ordinary ones, see footnote 9. With W_p ~ x^3 ≈ 7% for x ≈ 0.4, the p → p′ conversion suppresses the flux from ordinary sources, and the mechanism can explain the observed excess only if mirror sources dominate the cosmic-ray output. This assumption is not derived from the n−n′ model and is not testable with the present data. Without it, the same mechanism could predict a deficit of super-GZK protons, not an excess. The claim that the mechanism 'explains' the correlation with BL Lacs is therefore conditional on an external and currently unsupported input.
[Section 3, Eq. (10) and the definition of w] The effective-distance formula (10) depends crucially on the conversion probability w, which the paper leaves as an arbitrary parameter ('large enough mean values'). The actual value of w is controlled by the same magnetic-field environment that is the subject of the suppression discussion: in regions where ΔV = γ μ |B_tr − B′_tr| exceeds δm, the conversion probability is strongly suppressed, while the resonant-enhancement argument requires specific, non-generic field geometries. The paper does not provide a model for the distribution of |B − B′| along cosmic-ray paths, so Eq. (10) cannot be evaluated for any realistic astrophysical environment. A quantitative estimate of w for a fiducial field model, or an upper bound on the allowable B/B′ values, is needed to support the central claim.

Minor objections (4)

[Section 2] There are several typographical errors, e.g., 'kinematicaly', 'caracteristic', 'phenomenum', 'actualy', and 'equaly'; these should be corrected.
[Section 3, after Eq. (8)] The notation '50 Mpc' in Eq. (8) is not explicitly defined as l_p/y with l_p ≈ 5 Mpc and y ≈ 0.2; stating this definition would make the scaling in Eq. (10) easier to follow.
[Section 2, n-n′ oscillation time] The paper correctly notes that τ ~ 1 s is allowed by current limits, but it should be emphasized more prominently that this value is not measured; the ILL disappearance data admit the interpretation but do not require it. A short sentence in the abstract or conclusions distinguishing 'allowed' from 'established' would avoid overstatement.
[Section 3, footnote 8] The validity of the p/p′ two-state description is limited to E < 10^{21} eV, as the footnote states, but the main text at the start of Section 3 discusses 3×10^{20} eV events; it would help to state explicitly that the transport-chain derivation applies only below 10^{21} eV.

How Pith checks papers → · Full audit of this paper →

The paper

The paper claims

A fast neutron–mirror-neutron oscillation could transport ultra-high-energy protons across cosmological distances, relaxing or removing the GZK cutoff.

The reading

This paper tries to establish that a fast oscillation between the neutron and its mirror partner, with a period as short as about one second, would give ultra-high-energy cosmic rays a loophole around the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin cutoff. The idea is a transport cycle: a super-GZK proton loses energy by scattering a relic photon into a neutron; the neutron oscillates into a mirror neutron and decays into a mirror proton; the mirror proton travels through the dilute mirror photon bath for a distance $x^{-3}$ times larger than an ordinary proton, then scatters and converts back to an ordinary nucleon. If the mirror-world temperature ratio $x=T'/T$ lies near $0.3$–$0.5$, the effective distance a proton can travel before losing its energy grows to hundreds of megaparsecs, which would explain the observed super-GZK excess and its apparent correlation with distant BL Lacs.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the mass-mixing term $\delta m\,(nn' + n'n)$ generated by dimension-nine operators built from products of three quark fields and three mirror quark fields, suppressed by $M^5$, giving a vacuum oscillation time $\tau = 1/\delta m \sim 1$ s while conserving the combined baryon number $\bar B = B - B'$. Mirror parity keeps $n$ and $n'$ exactly degenerate in mass. The second ingredient is the temperature ratio $x = T'/T < 0.5$: the mirror photon density is $x^3$ times lower, so a mirror proton's mean free path is $x^{-3}$ times longer and its photopion threshold is $x^{-1}$ times higher. Together these two ingredients make the alternating $p \to n \to n' \to p' \to n' \to n \to p$ chain the operative transport mechanism.

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that neutron–mirror-neutron mixing with $ au \sim 1$ s converts the ordinary GZK problem into a two-sector transport problem. A proton with $E \gg E_{\rm th}$ scatters once per roughly $5$ Mpc on a CMB photon, producing a neutron about half the time; that neutron oscillates into a mirror neutron with probability $w$ and then $\beta$-decays into a mirror proton. In the mirror sector the photon background is colder and thinner, $n'_\gamma = x^3 n_\gamma$, so the mirror proton's mean free path is $l_p' = x^{-3} l_p$ and its threshold is $E_{\rm th}' = x^{-1} E_{\rm th}$. The cycle closes when the mirror proton scatters a mirror photon and returns to an ordinary nucleon, so a mixed $p$–$p'$ state propagates with an effective distance $R_{\rm eff} \sim \frac{1+x^{-3}}{2} \log(E_R/E) \cdot 50\,\mathrm{Mpc}$. For $x \simeq 0.3$–$0.5$ this gives hundreds of megaparsecs of propagation, enough to relax or remove the GZK cutoff and to make distant BL Lacs plausible sources, provided the transition is not blocked by intergalactic magnetic fields.

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme rests on the assumption that the magnetic field transverse to a $10^{20}$ eV neutron's motion is smaller than about $10^{-15}$ G over the regions it crosses, or that ordinary and mirror magnetic fields cancel to that level, because otherwise the Lorentz-amplified magnetic potential suppresses the oscillation and the transport mechanism shuts off.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Super-GZK protons could reach Earth from sources several hundred megaparsecs away, so the measured excess over the GZK threshold would no longer force an exotic nearby accelerator or new physics at the source.
For $x\simeq0.3$–$0.5$, the effective propagation distance grows to $R_{\rm eff}\sim\left[(1+x^{-3})/2\right]\log(E_R/E)\cdot50\,\mathrm{Mpc}$, with mirror mean free paths of $40$–$200$ Mpc.
The arrival flux of ordinary protons is diluted by a factor $W_p \sim x^3$, about $7\%$ at $x=0.4$, but a comparable mirror-proton source population could compensate for that loss.
For very small $x\simeq0.1$, mirror protons cross the whole Hubble radius without turning back, so the mirror sector acts as a sink and the cosmic ray cutoff becomes sharper rather than softer.
The same oscillation could be tested in tabletop neutron disappearance or regeneration experiments; a $\sim1$ s vacuum oscillation time would produce a $\sim1\%$ disappearance in a $0.1$ s flight.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same conversion chain would make the ultra-high-energy sky a probe of intergalactic magnetism: a measurement of void magnetic fields above $10^{-15}$ G would turn a GZK-excess observation into a bound on the oscillation time $\tau$ and the temperature ratio $x$.
Beyond the paper, one could search for a spectral dip between $E_{\rm th}$ and $E_{\rm th}/x$, where ordinary protons convert one-way into mirror protons and do not return; the paper notes that thermal smoothing of the photon distribution would soften but not necessarily erase this feature.
Beyond the paper, the mechanism predicts that the highest-energy events should appear correlated with sources spread over hundreds of megaparsecs rather than within the local $50$ Mpc sphere, offering a statistical way to distinguish this picture from top-down or Lorentz-violation explanations.

Original abstract

If there exists the mirror world, a parallel hidden sector of particles with exactly the same microphysics as that of the observable particles, then the primordial nucleosynthesis constraints require that the temperature of the cosmic background of mirror relic photons should be smaller than that of the ordinary relic photons, T'/T < 0.5 or so. On the other hand, the present experimental and astrophysical limits allow a rather fast neutron - mirror neutron oscillation in vacuum, with an oscillation time $\tau \sim 1$ s, much smaller than the neutron lifetime. We show that this could provide a very efficient mechanism for transporting ultra high energy protons at large cosmological distances. The mechanism operates as follows: a super-GZK energy proton scatters a relic photon producing a neutron that oscillates into a mirror neutron which then decays into a mirror proton. The latter undergoes a symmetric process, scattering a mirror relic photon and producing back an ordinary nucleon, but only after traveling a distance $(T/T')^{3}$ times larger than ordinary protons. This may relax or completely remove the GZK-cutoff in the cosmic ray spectrum and also explain the correlation between the observed ultra high energy protons and far distant sources as are the BL Lacs.

The compiled record

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. Numbers in the tables are the authors', checked by code. No sentence in this record was written by a model.

Compiled by classifier-1.13-20260917 via OpenRouter, question bank abstract-p1-20260923, 2026-09-23: 1 request, 5,155 input tokens, $0.0002 reported.

What the abstract itself states, as probabilities: claims first 0.04 · states limitation 0.16 · human participants 0.01 · controlled comparison 0.06 · randomized assignment 0.01 · states quantitative result 0.92 · compares with prior results 0.28 · mentions code or data availability 0.01.

The abstract, sentence by sentence

arXiv listing abstract v1. Results and the main claim are underlined; show every role.

If there exists the mirror world, a parallel hidden sector of particles with exactly the same microphysics as that of the observable particles, then the primordial nucleosynthesis constraints require that the temperature of the cosmic background of mirror relic photons should be smaller than that of the ordinary relic photons, T'/T < 0.5 or so. On the other hand, the present experimental and astrophysical limits allow a rather fast neutron - mirror neutron oscillation in vacuum, with an oscillation time $\tau \sim 1$ s, much smaller than the neutron lifetime. We show that this could provide a very efficient mechanism for transporting ultra high energy protons at large cosmological distances. The mechanism operates as follows: a super-GZK energy proton scatters a relic photon producing a neutron that oscillates into a mirror neutron which then decays into a mirror proton. The latter undergoes a symmetric process, scattering a mirror relic photon and producing back an ordinary nucleon, but only after traveling a distance $(T/T')^{3}$ times larger than ordinary protons. This may relax or completely remove the GZK-cutoff in the cosmic ray spectrum and also explain the correlation between the observed ultra high energy protons and far distant sources as are the BL Lacs.

background contribution method result interpretation main claim

What the classifier reports for each sentence. The number is the probability it gave the label.
#	sentence	role	the authors' own work	states the main conclusion	strength
s0	If there exists the mirror world, a parallel hidden sector of particles with exactly the same microphysics as that of the observable particles, then the primordial nucleosynthesis constraints require that the temperature of the cosmic background of mirror relic photons should be smaller than that of the ordinary relic photons, T'/T < 0.5 or so.	background 1.00	0.09	0.04	hedged possibility 0.52
s1	On the other hand, the present experimental and astrophysical limits allow a rather fast neutron - mirror neutron oscillation in vacuum, with an oscillation time $\tau \sim 1$ s, much smaller than the neutron lifetime.	background 0.99	0.07	0.04	asserted 0.60
s2	We show that this could provide a very efficient mechanism for transporting ultra high energy protons at large cosmological distances.	contribution 0.63	0.82	0.50	hedged possibility 0.87
s3	The mechanism operates as follows: a super-GZK energy proton scatters a relic photon producing a neutron that oscillates into a mirror neutron which then decays into a mirror proton.	method 0.85	0.44	0.10	asserted 0.99
s4	The latter undergoes a symmetric process, scattering a mirror relic photon and producing back an ordinary nucleon, but only after traveling a distance $(T/T')^{3}$ times larger than ordinary protons.	method 0.88	0.59	0.09	asserted 0.98
s5	This may relax or completely remove the GZK-cutoff in the cosmic ray spectrum and also explain the correlation between the observed ultra high energy protons and far distant sources as are the BL Lacs.	interpretation 0.97	0.43	0.81	hedged possibility 1.00

What kind of paper the classifier reports this is: theoretical result 1.00 · evidence from argument 0.79.

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

Every quoted sentence on this record is the authors'. Every label is from Pith's closed vocabulary, with the probability shown beside it. Every number in the measurements table is the authors', checked by code. Record as JSON

References

Works cited (28)

[1]

T.D. Lee, C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 104 (1956) 254; I.Yu. Kobzarev, L.B. Okun, I.Ya. Pomeranchuk, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 3 (1966) 837; M. Pavˇ siˇ c, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 9 (1974) 229; S.I. Blinnikov, M.Yu. Khlopov, Sov. Astron. 27 (1983) 371; E. Kolb, D. Seckel, M. Turner, Nature 314 (1985) 415

View on Pith 1956
[2]

B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B 166 (1986) 196; S.L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. B 167 (1986) 35; E.D. Carlson, S.L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. B 193 (1987) 168

View on Pith 1986
[3]

R. Foot, H. Lew, R.R. Volkas, Phys. Lett. B 272 (1991) 67

View on Pith 1991
[4]

M.Yu. Khlopov et al. , Sov. Astron. 35 (1991) 21; H.M. Hodges, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 456

View on Pith 1991
[5]

R. Foot, H. Lew, R.R. Volkas, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 7 (1992) 25 67; E.K. Akhmedov, Z.G. Berezhiani, G. Senjanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 3013; R. Foot, R.R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 6595; Z. Berezhiani, R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 6607; Z.K. Silagadze, Phys. At. Nucl. 60 (1997) 272; V. Berezinsky, A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 0...

View on Pith 1992
[6]

S.N. Gninenko, Phys. Lett. B 326 (1994) 317; R. Foot, S. Gninenko, Phys. Lett. B 480 (2000) 171; A. Badertscher et al. , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19 (2004) 3833

View on Pith 1994
[7]

Z. Berezhiani, A.D. Dolgov, R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Lett. B 375 (1996) 26; Z.G. Berezhiani, Acta Phys. Pol. B 27 (1996) 1503

View on Pith 1996
[8]

Z. Berezhiani, Phys. Lett. B 417 (1998) 287; Z. Berezhiani, L. Gianfagna, M. Giannotti, Phys. Lett. B 500 (2001) 286

View on Pith 1998
[9]

L. Bento, Z. Berezhiani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 23130 4; Z. Berezhiani, L. Bento, Fortsch. Phys. 50 (2002) 489; hep-p h/0111116; see also R. Foot, R.R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 021304

View on Pith arXiv 2001
[10]

Z. Berezhiani, D. Comelli, F.L. Villante, Phys. Lett. B 503 (2001) 362

View on Pith 2001
[11]

A.Y. Ignatiev, R.R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 02351 8; Z. Berezhiani et al. , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14 (2005) 107; R. Foot, R.R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 123508; P. Ciarcelluti, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14 (2005) 187; ibid. 223; Z. Berezhiani et al. , Astropart. Phys. 24 (2006) 495. 12

View on Pith 2003
[12]

R. Foot, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19 (2004) 3807

View on Pith 2004
[13]

Z. Berezhiani, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19 (2004) 3775; Z. Berezhiani, ”Through the Looking-Glass: Alice’s Adventures in Mirror Wo rld”, in Ian Kogan Memorial Colection ”From Fields to Strings: Circu mnavigating Theoretical Physics”, Eds. M. Shifman et al. , Vol. 3, pp. 2147-2195 (2005), hep-ph/0508233

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004
[14]

Z. Berezhiani and L. Bento, ”Neutron - mirror neutron oscillations: How fast might they be?”, hep-ph/0507031

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[15]

R.N. Mohapatra, S. Nasri and S. Nussinov, ”Some implications of neutron mirror neutron oscillation”, hep-ph/0508109

View on Pith Pith review arXiv
[16]

K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 (1966) 748; G.T. Zatsepin and V.A. Kuzmin, JETP Lett. 4 (1966) 78

View on Pith 1966
[17]

V.A. Kuzmin, JETP Lett. 12 (1970) 228; S.L. Glashow, Proc. Neutrino’79, vol. 1, 518 (1979); R.N. Mohapatra, R.E. Marshak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 131 6

View on Pith 1970
[18]

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979)

View on Pith 1979
[19]

M. Baldo-Ceolin et al. , Z. Phys. C 63 (1994) 409

View on Pith 1994
[20]

K.G. Chetyrkin et al. , Phys. Lett. B 99 (1981) 358

View on Pith 1981
[21]

www.nndc.bnl.gov/wallet/

View on Pith
[22]

V. Berezinsky, Surveys High Energ. Phys. 17 (2002) 65; L es Houches Lect. Notes 78 (2004) 233

View on Pith 2002
[23]

P. Tinyakov, I. Tkachev, JETP Lett. 74 (2001) 1; ibid. 445; Astropart. Phys. 18 (2002) 165

View on Pith 2001
[24]

Z. Berezhiani, A.D. Dolgov, Astropart. Phys. 21 (2004) 59

View on Pith 2004
[25]

K. Dolag, M. Bartelmann, H. Lesch, Astron. Astrophys. 3 48 (1999) 351; G. Sigl, F. Miniati, T. Enslinn, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 043007 ; K. Dolag, D. Grasso, W. Springel, I. Tkachev, JCAP 0501 (2005 ) 009

View on Pith 1999
[26]

M.S. Turner, L.M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 2743; B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. 391 (1992) L1; A.D. Dolgov, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 2499

View on Pith 1988
[27]

V. Berezinsky, M. Kachelriess, A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 4302; V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov, Phys. At. Nucl. 61 (1998) 1028; M. Birkel, S. Sarkar, Astropart. Phys. 9 (1998) 297

View on Pith 1997
[28]

S.R. Coleman, S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 11600 8. 13

View on Pith 1999

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

Baryon Number Violation: From Nuclear Matrix Elements to BSM Physics
hep-ph 2025-04 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

A workshop report that maps the current experimental and theoretical landscape for baryon number violation, from proton decay and neutron-antineutron oscillation searches to the EFT, lattice QCD, and astrophysical con...
Mirror dark matter: Cosmology, galaxy structure and direct detection
astro-ph.CO 2014-01 conditional novelty 2.0 of 10

Mirror dark matter with kinetic mixing near 10^-9 is presented as a single-parameter framework that can reproduce early-universe cosmology, spiral-galaxy halo scaling relations, and several direct-detection anomalies.

How the literature uses it

11 arXiv papers cite this in 17 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 · 15 sentences without a confident label

Cites it as background 2 papers

Mirror states may provide a plethora of new effects: they could constitute cosmological dark matter [ref] , address the cosmological asymmetry of baryons [ref] , relax the GZK limit of cosmic rays [ref] , and collect in hidden stellar structures [ref] .

Smoke and mirrors: Neutron star internal heating constraints on mirror matter · Introduction · 0.86
Observation of $n→n'$ would have interesting astrophysical implications for extreme energy cosmic rays [ref] and for neutron stars [ref] .

Experimental Search for Neutron to Mirror Neutron Oscillations as an Explanation of the Neutron Lifetime Anomaly · Introduction · 0.92

Discussion

Disagree with the review, or know something it missed? Leave a comment, highlight any passage above to comment on it, or challenge this review formally.

[1] [1]

T.D. Lee, C.N. Yang, Phys. Rev. 104 (1956) 254; I.Yu. Kobzarev, L.B. Okun, I.Ya. Pomeranchuk, Sov. J. Nucl. Phys. 3 (1966) 837; M. Pavˇ siˇ c, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 9 (1974) 229; S.I. Blinnikov, M.Yu. Khlopov, Sov. Astron. 27 (1983) 371; E. Kolb, D. Seckel, M. Turner, Nature 314 (1985) 415

View on Pith 1956

[2] [2]

B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. B 166 (1986) 196; S.L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. B 167 (1986) 35; E.D. Carlson, S.L. Glashow, Phys. Lett. B 193 (1987) 168

View on Pith 1986

[3] [3]

R. Foot, H. Lew, R.R. Volkas, Phys. Lett. B 272 (1991) 67

View on Pith 1991

[4] [4]

M.Yu. Khlopov et al. , Sov. Astron. 35 (1991) 21; H.M. Hodges, Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993) 456

View on Pith 1991

[5] [5]

R. Foot, H. Lew, R.R. Volkas, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 7 (1992) 25 67; E.K. Akhmedov, Z.G. Berezhiani, G. Senjanovi´ c, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69 (1992) 3013; R. Foot, R.R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 6595; Z. Berezhiani, R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Rev. D 52 (1995) 6607; Z.K. Silagadze, Phys. At. Nucl. 60 (1997) 272; V. Berezinsky, A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 0...

View on Pith 1992

[6] [6]

S.N. Gninenko, Phys. Lett. B 326 (1994) 317; R. Foot, S. Gninenko, Phys. Lett. B 480 (2000) 171; A. Badertscher et al. , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19 (2004) 3833

View on Pith 1994

[7] [7]

Z. Berezhiani, A.D. Dolgov, R.N. Mohapatra, Phys. Lett. B 375 (1996) 26; Z.G. Berezhiani, Acta Phys. Pol. B 27 (1996) 1503

View on Pith 1996

[8] [8]

Z. Berezhiani, Phys. Lett. B 417 (1998) 287; Z. Berezhiani, L. Gianfagna, M. Giannotti, Phys. Lett. B 500 (2001) 286

View on Pith 1998

[9] [9]

L. Bento, Z. Berezhiani, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 23130 4; Z. Berezhiani, L. Bento, Fortsch. Phys. 50 (2002) 489; hep-p h/0111116; see also R. Foot, R.R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 021304

View on Pith arXiv 2001

[10] [10]

Z. Berezhiani, D. Comelli, F.L. Villante, Phys. Lett. B 503 (2001) 362

View on Pith 2001

[11] [11]

A.Y. Ignatiev, R.R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 68 (2003) 02351 8; Z. Berezhiani et al. , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14 (2005) 107; R. Foot, R.R. Volkas, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 123508; P. Ciarcelluti, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 14 (2005) 187; ibid. 223; Z. Berezhiani et al. , Astropart. Phys. 24 (2006) 495. 12

View on Pith 2003

[12] [12]

R. Foot, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19 (2004) 3807

View on Pith 2004

[13] [13]

Z. Berezhiani, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 19 (2004) 3775; Z. Berezhiani, ”Through the Looking-Glass: Alice’s Adventures in Mirror Wo rld”, in Ian Kogan Memorial Colection ”From Fields to Strings: Circu mnavigating Theoretical Physics”, Eds. M. Shifman et al. , Vol. 3, pp. 2147-2195 (2005), hep-ph/0508233

View on Pith Pith review arXiv 2004

[14] [14]

Z. Berezhiani and L. Bento, ”Neutron - mirror neutron oscillations: How fast might they be?”, hep-ph/0507031

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[15] [15]

R.N. Mohapatra, S. Nasri and S. Nussinov, ”Some implications of neutron mirror neutron oscillation”, hep-ph/0508109

View on Pith Pith review arXiv

[16] [16]

K. Greisen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 16 (1966) 748; G.T. Zatsepin and V.A. Kuzmin, JETP Lett. 4 (1966) 78

View on Pith 1966

[17] [17]

V.A. Kuzmin, JETP Lett. 12 (1970) 228; S.L. Glashow, Proc. Neutrino’79, vol. 1, 518 (1979); R.N. Mohapatra, R.E. Marshak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 131 6

View on Pith 1970

[18] [18]

S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 43, 1566 (1979)

View on Pith 1979

[19] [19]

M. Baldo-Ceolin et al. , Z. Phys. C 63 (1994) 409

View on Pith 1994

[20] [20]

K.G. Chetyrkin et al. , Phys. Lett. B 99 (1981) 358

View on Pith 1981

[21] [21]

www.nndc.bnl.gov/wallet/

View on Pith

[22] [22]

V. Berezinsky, Surveys High Energ. Phys. 17 (2002) 65; L es Houches Lect. Notes 78 (2004) 233

View on Pith 2002

[23] [23]

P. Tinyakov, I. Tkachev, JETP Lett. 74 (2001) 1; ibid. 445; Astropart. Phys. 18 (2002) 165

View on Pith 2001

[24] [24]

Z. Berezhiani, A.D. Dolgov, Astropart. Phys. 21 (2004) 59

View on Pith 2004

[25] [25]

K. Dolag, M. Bartelmann, H. Lesch, Astron. Astrophys. 3 48 (1999) 351; G. Sigl, F. Miniati, T. Enslinn, Phys. Rev. D 70 (2004) 043007 ; K. Dolag, D. Grasso, W. Springel, I. Tkachev, JCAP 0501 (2005 ) 009

View on Pith 1999

[26] [26]

M.S. Turner, L.M. Widrow, Phys. Rev. D 37 (1988) 2743; B. Ratra, Astrophys. J. 391 (1992) L1; A.D. Dolgov, Phys. Rev. D 48 (1993) 2499

View on Pith 1988

[27] [27]

V. Berezinsky, M. Kachelriess, A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79 (1997) 4302; V.A. Kuzmin, V.A. Rubakov, Phys. At. Nucl. 61 (1998) 1028; M. Birkel, S. Sarkar, Astropart. Phys. 9 (1998) 297

View on Pith 1997

[28] [28]

S.R. Coleman, S.L. Glashow, Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 11600 8. 13

View on Pith 1999