Bounding the photon mass with gravitationally lensed fast radio bursts

Chen-Ming Chang; Hao-Xuan Gao; Jin-Jun Geng; Jun-Jie Wei; Ke-Lai Meng; Song-Bo Zhang; Xue-Feng Wu

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Bounding the photon mass with gravitationally lensed fast radio bursts

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Using the gravitationally lensed fast radio burst FRB 20190308C, this paper derives an upper limit on the photon mass that is 10–100 times tighter than previous lensing-time-delay bounds.

desk verdict A clean, honest method paper for bounding the photon mass with lensed FRBs; the result is solid but the numerical limit is only as good as a 3.4σ lensing candidate. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.09806 v2 pith:FZHSFFCQ submitted 2024-12-13 astro-ph.HE

Chen-Ming Chang , Jun-Jie Wei , Ke-Lai Meng , Song-Bo Zhang , Hao-Xuan Gao , Jin-Jun Geng , Xue-Feng Wu This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords photonmassgravitationallensingfastradioburststimedelayChang-RefsdallensmassiveFRB20190308Clensed

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 shows that a massive photon leaves a fingerprint in the gravitational lensing of fast radio bursts: because the deflection angle becomes energy dependent, the time delay between lensed images carries a photon-mass term. The authors prove that, in a point-mass-plus-shear lens model, an upper limit on the photon rest mass follows directly from just two observables, the time delay $\Delta t$ and the leading-to-trailing flux ratio $R$. Applying this to the lensed FRB candidate FRB 20190308C ($\Delta t = 8.85$ ms, $R = 0.5$), they obtain $m_\gamma < 5.3\times10^{-42}$ kg for a fixed external shear of $\gamma' = 0.01$ and $m_\gamma < 2.1\times10^{-41}{-}2.4\times10^{-42}$ kg over $0 < \gamma' < 1$. If correct, this is the strongest photon-mass limit from gravitational lensing time delays, improving on AGN-lensing constraints by one to two orders of magnitude and providing an independent test of Maxwell's zero-mass postulate.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Chang–Refsdal lens model (a point mass plus external shear), whose dimensionless lens equation has up to four image solutions. The paper avoids solving the full equation by characterizing the 'permitted region' in the $(R,\Delta t)$ plane, bounded by three curves: the source on the two symmetry axes and at the tips of the inner caustics. The left boundary gives a lower limit on $\Delta t$ for fixed lens mass and shear, and the inequality $\Delta t_{\min}<\Delta t_{\mathrm{obs}}$ is the step that converts an observed delay into a bound on $m_\gamma$ through the massive-photon rescaling of the shear.

What would settle it

A re-analysis of the FRB 20190308C dynamic spectrum showing that the two sub-bursts have different dispersion measures, scattering times, or polarization position angles would rule out a common lensed image pair; likewise, a deep radio/optical search that fails to find any lensing mass along the line of sight with the required $M(1+z_l)\sim 4277\,M_\odot$ would break the interpretation. Alternatively, measuring the two sub-burst time delay at several frequencies and finding no frequency dependence at the level predicted for $m_\gamma\sim 10^{-42}$ kg would directly contradict the massive-photon lensing hypothesis.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes an inequality chain that links the observed time delay to the photon mass: for a point lens with external shear, the minimum possible gravitational time delay for a pair of images is $\Delta t_{\min} = (4GM/c^3)(1+z_l)[2\gamma'/(1-\gamma'^2)+\ln((1+\gamma')/(1-\gamma'))]$, and the observed delay must exceed it. Because the massive-photon correction rescales the shear to $\gamma' = (1+\tfrac{1}{2}\mu^2)\gamma$ with $\mu^2 = m_\gamma^2 c^2/P_0^2$, the inequality $\Delta t_{\min} < \Delta t_{\mathrm{obs}}$ becomes a closed upper bound on $m_\gamma$, giving Equation (14). Using FRB 20190308C's measured $\Delta t_{\mathrm{obs}}=8.85$ ms and $R_{\mathrm{obs}}=0.5$, together with the lowest observed frequency 400 MHz and a lens mass lower bound $M(1+z_l)=4277\,M_\odot$, the bound is $m_\gamma < 5.3\times10^{-42}$ kg for $\gamma'=0.01$, and $m_\gamma < 2.1\times10^{-41}$–$2.4\times10^{-42}$ kg across $0<\gamma'<1$.

Load-bearing premise

The result rests on FRB 20190308C being genuinely a gravitational lens rather than an intrinsically double-peaked burst or noise; the candidate is only a 3.4$\sigma$ autocorrelation detection, and if that identification fails, the photon-mass limit does not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Each new strongly lensed FRB with measured $\Delta t$ and $R$ yields an immediate photon-mass upper limit without full lens modeling.
The bound improves with higher observing frequency (larger $P_0$), so future wideband FRB detectors can push $m_\gamma$ down further.
A larger sample of lensed FRBs could probe the lens mass function at $10^2$–$10^4\,M_\odot$ scales through the $M(1+z_l)$–$\gamma'$ relations derived here.
Because the method uses only two observables, it can be applied to other compact extragalactic transients, such as lensed repeating FRBs or gamma-ray bursts.

Reading between the lines

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

If the 3.4$\sigma$ lensing identification of FRB 20190308C is confirmed by CHIME/FRB reprocessing or follow-up, the $m_\gamma < 5.3\times10^{-42}$ kg bound becomes a robust benchmark; conversely, if the double peak is shown to be intrinsic, the limit vanishes entirely, so the bound's near-term fate hinges on the lensing status of one candidate.
The same boundary-inequality logic could be inverted: with an independent photon-mass limit (e.g., from dispersion measures), a lensed FRB's $\Delta t$ and $R$ could be used to constrain the external shear or lens mass—turning the method into a probe of the lens environment.
A statistical stack of many lensed FRB candidates with modest significance could collectively rule out photon masses above $\sim10^{-42}$ kg even if no single candidate is individually secure, because the lensing interpretation would be required to explain a coherent population of double-peaked bursts with lens-like flux ratios.
The frequency dependence of $\Delta t$ predicted by massive-photon lensing (through $\mu^2$) is testable with broadband FRB observations; a null measurement at two well-separated frequencies would independently set a bound comparable to or better than the time-delay-only bound.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

What should you know? This is a short methods paper that derives an upper limit on the photon mass from the time delay and flux ratio of a strongly lensed FRB, using a point-mass plus external shear lens. The new bit is combining Δt and R to get a lower bound on the lens mass, then using that to turn the observed delay into an upper bound on mγ. The arithmetic checks out, and the resulting bound for FRB 20190308C, mγ < 5×10⁻⁴² kg for γ′=0.01, really is about an order of magnitude better than Glicenstein's AGN-based lensing limit. The paper is also honest: it calls the source a 'candidate' and presents the bound as an example.

The soft spots are mostly about how much weight the headline number can carry. The source, FRB 20190308C, is a 3.4σ autocorrelation candidate, not a confirmed lens. If the double-peaked structure is intrinsic or noise, the entire numerical limit collapses. That's not a flaw in the derivation, but it means the quoted limit is conditional, not strict. Second, the paper asserts rather than proves that the three boundary curves enclose all possible R–Δt pairs ('one can see from this plot'). For a referee, I'd want at least a sketch of an argument that the two-image region is bounded that way, especially for γ′ values that are not very small. Third, Δt and R are used without uncertainties. Fine as a first pass, but a real bound should propagate measurement error, and in a borderline candidate the delay itself is uncertain. Finally, the method only handles two-image configurations; four-image cases are dismissed by cross-section arguments that get less clean as γ′ approaches 1.

None of this sinks the paper. The derivation is internally consistent, the new observable combination is genuinely useful, and the limit is correctly framed relative to other lensing time-delay bounds, not as a competitor to the much stronger limits from dispersion or Coulomb's law. It deserves a serious referee and could be publishable after minor revisions that address the boundary enclosure and uncertainties.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a method to bound the photon rest mass using the gravitational lensing time delay and flux ratio of strongly lensed fast radio bursts (FRBs) in a point-mass plus external shear (Chang-Refsdal) lens model. The authors derive an inequality (Eq. 14) that turns the observed time delay of a lensed FRB candidate, FRB 20190308C, into an upper limit on mγ. For a fixed equivalent shear γ' = 0.01 they obtain mγ < 5.3×10⁻⁴² kg, and for 0 < γ' < 1 they quote mγ < 2.1×10⁻⁴¹−2.4×10⁻⁴² kg, claiming a 1–2 order of magnitude improvement over previous lensing-time-delay limits from AGNs.

Significance. If the result holds, the method offers a new and observationally inexpensive way to constrain the photon mass, and it could become increasingly powerful as future surveys deliver more lensed FRB candidates. The analytic derivation of Eq. (14) from the minimum time delay of the Chang-Refsdal lens is transparent and can be checked by the reader, which is a strength. However, the numerical limits are conditional on an unconfirmed 3.4σ lensing candidate and, more importantly, on a small-μ approximation that is inconsistent with the derived bound. The general idea is interesting and worth pursuing, but the present numerical claims are not yet supported.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Eqs. (14)-(15)] The numerical bound is not self-consistent. The text states that 'the photon mass term μ≪1' and therefore sets γ≃γ′ = 0.01, but inserting the quoted limit mγ = 5.3×10⁻⁴² kg and ν = 400 MHz into μ = mγc²/(hν) gives μ ≈ 1.8, which contradicts μ≪1. Since γ = γ′/(1+μ²/2), the identification γ≃γ′ is invalid exactly in the regime where the claimed bound lies. The same issue affects the entire range quoted in Eq. (16); for mγ = 2.1×10⁻⁴¹ kg, μ ≈ 7.1. A self-consistent treatment—for example, solving the full system without assuming μ≪1, or explicitly scanning over γ and μ—is required before the 'strict' upper limit can be supported.
[Section II/III, Fig. 1] The paper asserts, rather than proves, that the three boundary curves (Eqs. 5–6, 9–10, and 11) enclose all possible R–Δt pairs in the permitted region. The text says 'one can see from this plot,' and the central inequality Δt_obs > Δt_min relies on this enclosure. Since the method's validity depends on this claim, a rigorous analytic argument or an exhaustive numerical demonstration (e.g., a dense scan over source positions for a range of γ′) should be provided.
[Section III, FRB 20190308C] The numerical limits rest on a 3.4σ lensing candidate from Ref. [63], which the paper itself labels a 'candidate' and a 'plausible candidate.' If the double-peaked structure of FRB 20190308C is intrinsic to the source or a noise fluctuation, then the observed Δt is not a gravitational lensing time delay and the chain leading to Eq. (14) is invalid. The abstract and conclusions should state this conditionality explicitly (e.g., 'if the lensing interpretation is confirmed'), and the paper would benefit from a discussion of how the bound would shift if the candidate's significance or the measurement uncertainties on Δt and R are taken into account.

minor comments (5)

[Figure 1 caption] The caption gives γ′ = 0.011 while the text and Figure 2 use γ′ = 0.01; this inconsistency should be corrected.
[Abstract] The phrase 'mγ < 2.1×10⁻⁴¹−2.4×10⁻⁴² kg' is ambiguous; it should be clarified that the upper limit varies within this range depending on γ′, with the most conservative (largest) value being 2.1×10⁻⁴¹ kg.
[Introduction] There are typographical errors such as 'suppermassive' (twice) and 'e ffectively'; these should be corrected in the final version.
[Section II] The claim that the analysis of Chen et al. [67] for γ≪1 'can be extended to the case of γ<1' lacks justification; a brief argument or reference would strengthen the presentation.
[Section III] The observed values Δt_obs = 8.85 ms and R_obs = 0.5 are used as point values without uncertainties; specifying the uncertainties from Ref. [63] would make the derived limit more informative.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (14) follows from a conservative inequality applied to observed inputs, and the numerical bound inherits only an external 3.4σ lensing-candidate validity risk, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The central bound, Eq. (14), is obtained algebraically from Eq. (13), which states that the photon-mass-dependent minimum time delay must be smaller than the observed time delay: Δt_min < Δt_obs. This is a one-way inequality; the photon mass is not fitted to data, and no parameter is adjusted to reproduce the reported upper limit. The lens mass M(1+z_l) = 4277 M_⊙ used at γ' = 0.01 is taken from the authors' earlier search [63] as a lower bound on the lens mass. Because Eq. (14) gives a weaker (larger) bound for smaller M, using the lower bound is conservative and cannot manufacture the limit. The observed inputs Δt_obs = 8.85 ms and R_obs = 0.5 are extrinsic to the photon-mass derivation. The paper's reliance on [63] is a self-citation, but [63] is an independently published candidate search with its own autocorrelation analysis and simulation checks; it does not assume the photon-mass result, so this is not load-bearing circularity. The main vulnerabilities are not circular: FRB 20190308C is only a 3.4σ lensing candidate, so the numerical limit is conditional on the lensing interpretation, and the assertion that three boundary curves enclose all possible (R, Δt) pairs is stated without a full proof. These are external-validity and proof-completeness concerns, not cases where the output is equivalent to the input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central limit rests on four unproved inputs: the semi-classical massive-photon lensing scaling from Lowenthal and Glicenstein, the Chang-Refsdal model with its boundary curves, the 3.4σ lensed-FRB candidate identification, and the choice of 400 MHz as the relevant photon frequency. The lens mass and shear are not independently measured; they are inferred from the observed R and Δt, which is why the numerical limit is conditional.

free parameters (2)

external shear strength γ' = 0.01 (fiducial; scanned over 0<γ'<1)
The lens model includes an external shear that is not measured for the system; the main limit is quoted at γ'=0.01, and the sensitivity analysis varies it, so the central bound depends on this choice.
lens mass M(1+z_l) = 4277 M⊙ (lower bound at γ'=0.01); varies with γ'
The lens mass is not independently measured; it is set by requiring the observed (R_obs=0.5, Δt_obs=8.85 ms) to lie on the boundary of the permitted R-Δt region. The photon mass bound scales as 1/sqrt(M), so the quoted limit depends on this inferred mass.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Massive photon deflection and time delay in a gravitational field are modified by a factor (1 + 1/2 μ²), with μ² = mγ² c² / P₀², following Lowenthal (1973) and Glicenstein (2017).
Section II adopts this scaling without re-derivation; the central bound (Eq. 14) rests on it.
domain assumption The Chang-Refsdal (point mass + external shear) lens model and the two-image boundary curves (y'_1=0 and y'_2=0) bracket all possible (R, Δt) pairs.
Sections II and III state the permitted region is bounded by the three boundary conditions; the paper cites Chen et al. (2021) for the two-image case and extends it to γ<1, but does not prove the bracketing.
domain assumption FRB 20190308C is a lensed FRB candidate at 3.4σ significance (Chang et al. 2025).
The numerical limit uses the observed Δt and R of this candidate; if the candidate is a false positive, the limit is not established. This is acknowledged in Section IV.
domain assumption The lowest observed frequency ν=400 MHz sets P₀ = hν/c for the photon momenta.
Used in Section III to convert μ to mγ; the bound scales linearly with P₀/c, so the frequency choice affects the result.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bounding the photon mass with gravitationally lensed fast radio bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FZHSFFCQ

@misc{pith2026241209806,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bounding the photon mass with gravitationally lensed fast radio bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FZHSFFCQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.09806}
}

abstract

The gravitational time delays of macro-lenses can be used to constrain the rest mass of the photon with high accuracy. Assuming a point-mass $+$ external shear lens model, we prove that an upper limit of the photon mass can be derived directly from two observables--the time delay $\Delta t$ and the leading-to-trailing flux ratio $R$ of strongly lensed fast radio bursts (FRBs). Using the observed values of $\Delta t$ and $R$ of a lensed FRB candidate, i.e., FRB 20190308C, as a reference, we obtain a strict upper limit of the photon mass between $m_\gamma < 5.3 \times {10}^{-42}\,\rm kg$, for a given external shear strength of $\gamma' = 0.01$, and $m_{\gamma} < 2.1 \times 10^{-41}-2.4 \times 10^{-42}\,\text{kg}$, within the external shear range of $0<\gamma'<1$. This provides the most stringent limit to date on the photon mass through gravitational lensing time delays, improving by 1 to 2 orders of magnitude the previous results obtained from lensed active galactic nuclei.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.09806 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Sensitivity of the upper photon mass limit [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Constraints on Primordial Black Hole Dressed by Dark Matter Halo from Microlensing Effect of Fast Radio Bursts
astro-ph.CO 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A new conversion formula turns monochromatic bare-PBH microlensing bounds into extended-mass dressed-PBH bounds, and a 10^5-FRB forecast places f_PBH near 10^-4.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

68 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[63]

A lensed FRB candidate in the first CHIME/FRB Catalogue and its potential implications

C. Chang, et al. , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 537, L61 (2025), arXiv:2406.19654 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025
[1]

De Broglie, J

L. De Broglie, J. Phys. Radium 3, 422 (1922)

work page 1922
[2]

Proca, J

A. Proca, J. Phys. Radium 7 7, 347 (1936)

work page 1936
[3]

Massive Photon and Dark Energy

S. Kouwn, P. Oh, and C.-G. Park, Phys. Rev. D 93, 083012 (2016), arXiv:1512.00541 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016
[4]

A. D. A. M. Spallicci, J. A. Helay ¨el-Neto, M. L ´opez- Corredoira, and S. Capozziello, European Physical Journal C 81, 4 (2021), arXiv:2011.12608 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[5]

A. S. Goldhaber and M. M. Nieto, Reviews of Modern Physics 43, 277 (1971)

work page 1971
[6]

L.-C. Tu, J. Luo, and G. T. Gillies, Reports on Progress in Physics 68, 77 (2005)

work page 2005
[7]

Special Relativity And Its Experimental Founda- tion,

Y . Z. Zhang, “Special Relativity And Its Experimental Founda- tion,” Special Relativity And Its Experimental Foundation. Se- ries: Advanced Series on Theoretical Physical Science, ISBN: 978-981-02-2749-4. WORLD SCIENTIFIC, Edited by Yuan Zhong Zhang, vol. 4 (1997)

work page 1997

Show all 68 references

[8]

L. B. Okun, Acta Physica Polonica B 37, 565 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602036 [hep-ph]

2006 arXiv
[9]

A. S. Goldhaber and M. M. Nieto, Reviews of Modern Physics 82, 939 (2010), arXiv:0809.1003 [hep-ph]

2010 arXiv
[10]

Spavieri, J

G. Spavieri, J. Quintero, G. T. Gillies, and M. Rodr ´ıguez, Eu- ropean Physical Journal D 61, 531 (2011)

2011
[11]

Wei and X.-F

J.-J. Wei and X.-F. Wu, Frontiers of Physics 16, 44300 (2021), arXiv:2102.03724 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[12]

Lovell, F

B. Lovell, F. L. Whipple, and L. H. Solomon, Nature (London) 202, 377 (1964)

1964
[13]

Warner and R

B. Warner and R. E. Nather, Nature (London) 222, 157 (1969)

1969
[14]

B. E. Schaefer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 4964 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9810479 [astro-ph]

1999
[15]

Zhang, Y .-T

B. Zhang, Y .-T. Chai, Y .-C. Zou, and X.-F. Wu, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics 11, 20 (2016), arXiv:1607.03225 [astro- ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[16]

Wei, E.-K

J.-J. Wei, E.-K. Zhang, S.-B. Zhang, and X.-F. Wu, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 17, 13 (2017), arXiv:1608.07675 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[17]

Wei and X.-F

J.-J. Wei and X.-F. Wu, JCAP 2018, 045 (2018), arXiv:1803.07298 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[18]

Wu, et al

X.-F. Wu, et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 822, L15 (2016), arXiv:1602.07835 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[19]

Bonetti, et al

L. Bonetti, et al. , Physics Letters B 757, 548 (2016), arXiv:1602.09135 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[20]

Bonetti, et al

L. Bonetti, et al. , Physics Letters B 768, 326 (2017), arXiv:1701.03097 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[21]

Shao and B

L. Shao and B. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 95, 123010 (2017), arXiv:1705.01278 [hep-ph]

2017 arXiv
[22]

Xing, et al

N. Xing, et al. , Astrophys. J. Lett. 882, L13 (2019), arXiv:1907.00583 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[23]

Wei and X.-F

J.-J. Wei and X.-F. Wu, Research in Astronomy and Astro- physics 20, 206 (2020), arXiv:2006.09680 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[24]

H. Wang, X. Miao, and L. Shao, Physics Letters B 820, 136596 (2021), arXiv:2103.15299 [astro-ph.HE]

2021 arXiv
[25]

Chang, J.-J

C.-M. Chang, J.-J. Wei, S.-b. Zhang, and X.-F. Wu, JCAP2023, 010 (2023), arXiv:2207.00950 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[26]

H.-N. Lin, L. Tang, and R. Zou, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.520, 1324 (2023), arXiv:2301.12103 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[27]

Wang, J.-J

B. Wang, J.-J. Wei, X.-F. Wu, and M. L´opez-Corredoira, JCAP 2023, 025 (2023), arXiv:2304.14784 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[28]

J.-Y . Ran, B. Wang, and J.-J. Wei, Chinese Physics Letters 41, 059501 (2024), arXiv:2404.17154 [astro-ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[29]

E. R. Williams, J. E. Faller, and H. A. Hill, Phys. Rev. Lett. 26, 721 (1971)

1971
[30]

Davis, L., A

J. Davis, L., A. S. Goldhaber, and M. M. Nieto, Phys. Rev. Lett. 35, 1402 (1975)

1975
[31]

G. V . Chibisov, Soviet Physics Uspekhi19, 624 (1976)

1976
[32]

M. A. Chernikov, C. J. Gerber, H. R. Ott, and H. J. Gerber, Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 3383 (1992). 6

1992
[33]

A. D. A. M. Spallicci, G. Sarracino, O. Randriamboarison, J. A. Helay¨el-Neto, and A. Dib, European Physical Journal Plus139, 551 (2024), arXiv:2205.02487 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[34]

D. D. Ryutov, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 39, A73 (1997)

1997
[35]

D. D. Ryutov, Plasma Physics and Controlled Fusion 49, B429 (2007)

2007
[36]

Retin `o, A

A. Retin `o, A. D. A. M. Spallicci, and A. Vaivads, Astroparticle Physics 82, 49 (2016), arXiv:1302.6168 [hep-ph]

2016 arXiv
[37]

Lakes, Phys

R. Lakes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1826 (1998)

1998
[38]

Luo, L.-C

J. Luo, L.-C. Tu, Z.-K. Hu, and E.-J. Luan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 081801 (2003)

2003
[39]

P. Pani, V . Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, E. Berti, and A. Ishibashi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 131102 (2012), arXiv:1209.0465 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[40]

Yang and B

Y .-P. Yang and B. Zhang, Astrophys. J. 842, 23 (2017), arXiv:1701.03034 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[41]

D. D. Lowenthal, Phys. Rev. D 8, 2349 (1973)

1973
[42]

Accioly and R

A. Accioly and R. Paszko, Phys. Rev. D 69, 107501 (2004)

2004
[43]

Qian, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy55, 523 (2012), arXiv:1406.1592 [astro-ph.CO]

L. Qian, Science China Physics, Mechanics, and Astronomy55, 523 (2012), arXiv:1406.1592 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[44]

Egorov, M

P. Egorov, M. Guzinin, H. Hakobyan, and S. Troitsky, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 437, L90 (2014), arXiv:1306.2716 [astro- ph.CO]

2014 arXiv
[45]

J. F. Glicenstein, Astrophys. J. 850, 102 (2017), arXiv:1710.11587 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[46]

Accioly, A

A. Accioly, A. Azeredo, H. Mukai, and E. D. R. Neto, Progress of Theoretical Physics 104, 103 (2000)

2000
[47]

Accioly and S

A. Accioly and S. Ragusa, Classical and Quantum Gravity 19, 5429 (2002)

2002
[48]

D. R. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M. A. McLaughlin, D. J. Narkevic, and F. Crawford, Science 318, 777 (2007), arXiv:0709.4301 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[49]

Thornton, et al

D. Thornton, et al. , Science 341, 53 (2013), arXiv:1307.1628 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[50]

J. M. Cordes and S. Chatterjee, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 57, 417 (2019), arXiv:1906.05878 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[51]

Petro ff, J

E. Petro ff, J. W. T. Hessels, and D. R. Lorimer, Astron. Astro- phys. Rev. 27, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.07947 [astro-ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[52]

Petro ff, J

E. Petro ff, J. W. T. Hessels, and D. R. Lorimer, Astron. Astro- phys. Rev. 30, 2 (2022), arXiv:2107.10113 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[53]

Zhang, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 035005 (2023), arXiv:2212.03972 [astro-ph.HE]

B. Zhang, Reviews of Modern Physics 95, 035005 (2023), arXiv:2212.03972 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[54]

Deng and B

W. Deng and B. Zhang, Astrophys. J. Lett. 783, L35 (2014), arXiv:1401.0059 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[55]

J. B. Mu ˜noz, E. D. Kovetz, L. Dai, and M. Kamionkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 091301 (2016), arXiv:1605.00008 [astro- ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[56]

Y . K. Wang and F. Y . Wang, Astron. & Astrophys. 614, A50 (2018), arXiv:1801.07360 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[57]

K. Liao, S. B. Zhang, Z. Li, and H. Gao, Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L11 (2020), arXiv:2003.13349 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[58]

M. W. Sammons, et al. , Astrophys. J. 900, 122 (2020), arXiv:2002.12533 [astro-ph.CO]

2020 arXiv
[59]

Krochek and E

K. Krochek and E. D. Kovetz, Phys. Rev. D105, 103528 (2022), arXiv:2112.03721 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[60]

Leung, et al

C. Leung, et al. , Phys. Rev. D 106, 043017 (2022), arXiv:2204.06001 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv
[61]

Zhou, et al

H. Zhou, et al. , Astrophys. J. 928, 124 (2022), arXiv:2109.09251 [astro-ph.CO]

2022 arXiv
[62]

Connor and V

L. Connor and V . Ravi, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 521, 4024 (2023), arXiv:2206.14310 [astro-ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[64]

Chang and S

K. Chang and S. Refsdal, Nature (London) 282, 561 (1979)

1979
[65]

Chang and S

K. Chang and S. Refsdal, Astron. & Astrophys. 132, 168 (1984)

1984
[66]

J. H. An and N. W. Evans, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 369, 317 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601457 [astro-ph]

2006 arXiv
[67]

X. Chen, Y . Shu, W. Zheng, and G. Li, Astrophys. J. 912, 134 (2021), arXiv:2105.05868 [astro-ph.GA]

2021 arXiv
[68]

Gao, et al., Mon

H.-X. Gao, et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 516, 453 (2022), arXiv:2204.03823 [astro-ph.HE]

2022 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [63]

A lensed FRB candidate in the first CHIME/FRB Catalogue and its potential implications

C. Chang, et al. , Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 537, L61 (2025), arXiv:2406.19654 [astro-ph.HE]

work page Pith review arXiv 2025

[2] [1]

De Broglie, J

L. De Broglie, J. Phys. Radium 3, 422 (1922)

work page 1922

[3] [2]

Proca, J

A. Proca, J. Phys. Radium 7 7, 347 (1936)

work page 1936

[4] [3]

Massive Photon and Dark Energy

S. Kouwn, P. Oh, and C.-G. Park, Phys. Rev. D 93, 083012 (2016), arXiv:1512.00541 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2016

[5] [4]

A. D. A. M. Spallicci, J. A. Helay ¨el-Neto, M. L ´opez- Corredoira, and S. Capozziello, European Physical Journal C 81, 4 (2021), arXiv:2011.12608 [astro-ph.CO]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[6] [5]

A. S. Goldhaber and M. M. Nieto, Reviews of Modern Physics 43, 277 (1971)

work page 1971

[7] [6]

L.-C. Tu, J. Luo, and G. T. Gillies, Reports on Progress in Physics 68, 77 (2005)

work page 2005

[8] [7]

Special Relativity And Its Experimental Founda- tion,

Y . Z. Zhang, “Special Relativity And Its Experimental Founda- tion,” Special Relativity And Its Experimental Foundation. Se- ries: Advanced Series on Theoretical Physical Science, ISBN: 978-981-02-2749-4. WORLD SCIENTIFIC, Edited by Yuan Zhong Zhang, vol. 4 (1997)

work page 1997