Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Cosmology-Independent Constraints on Irreducible Magnetic Monopole Background

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Cosmic-ray collisions with interstellar gas can make an unavoidable monopole background that galactic magnetic fields then rule out below about 9 GeV, without any primordial monopole abundance.

desk verdict A genuinely new cosmology-independent monopole production channel, with useful generalized Parker bounds whose headline limits still lean on an unquantified ISM column density. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.15132 v1 pith:TC7FZ2OQ submitted 2024-12-19 hep-ph astro-ph.COastro-ph.HE

Syuhei Iguro , Varun Mathur , Ian M. Shoemaker , Volodymyr Takhistov This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.COastro-ph.HE PACS 14.80.Hv
keywords magneticmonopolescosmicrayinteractionsinterstellarmediumParkerboundgalacticfieldsseedAndromedaphotonfusionmonopoleproduction
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

Magnetic monopoles need not be relics of the early universe: cosmic rays hitting interstellar gas can produce them continuously, and the paper argues this flux is irreducible. Such monopoles drain energy from galactic magnetic fields as they accelerate, so the survival of the Milky Way's field bounds the production rate. The authors generalize the Parker bound to extended energy spectra and relativistic monopoles, then apply it to both present-day fields and seed fields in the Milky Way and Andromeda. The result is a cosmology-independent constraint that excludes monopoles lighter than about 9 GeV and yields cross-section limits competitive with laboratory searches near 10-100 GeV.

What carries the argument

The central identity is the generalized Parker energy-budget inequality, Eq. (3.4): $\frac{1}{\tau}\frac{B^2 l_c}{24\pi} > \int dE \, \frac{dF}{dE} \Delta E$, where $\Delta E$ is the energy a monopole gains crossing a coherent field region, taken piecewise as $g B l_c$ when the initial energy is small and $\frac{g^2 B^2 l_c^2}{2 m \gamma \beta^2}$ when it is large. The flux $dF/d\gamma$ comes from Eq. (2.2), the integral of the cosmic-ray spectrum times the $pp\to MM$ cross-section against the ISM column density $n_{\rm ISM}$. Together these convert the mere existence of galactic magnetic fields into a bound on the monopole production cross-section.

What would settle it

Compute the cosmic-ray-weighted ISM column density along the magnetic-field coherence length in the Milky Way and Andromeda using three-dimensional gas maps; if the effective value is more than an order of magnitude below the assumed $(1\, {\rm cm}^{-3})(1\, {\rm kpc})$, the reported exclusion of monopoles below about 9 GeV collapses.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that monopole production from cosmic-ray-ISM collisions sets a floor on the monopole flux in galaxies, independent of any cosmological production mechanism. Using pp-collision simulations for Drell-Yan and photon-fusion channels, with an unknown overall cross-section normalization, it derives a differential flux and asks how much energy that flux would drain from a magnetic field of coherence length $l_c$ over the dynamo regeneration time. The generalized Parker-like bound excludes monopole masses below about 9 GeV for the Milky Way, and the same logic applied to seed fields and to Andromeda yields new competitive limits. A direct corollary is that galactic magnetic fields are a generic probe of light monopoles, including sub-Dirac charges where collider searches weaken.

Load-bearing premise

The whole bound scales with the assumed density of interstellar gas and cosmic rays along the path, taken as about one proton per cubic centimeter over one kiloparsec, a quantity the paper acknowledges varies by a few orders of magnitude; a much lower effective value would weaken the limits by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Monopoles lighter than about 9 GeV, if produced at the cross-sections expected from the reference model, are excluded by Milky Way magnetic-field survival without any assumption about primordial abundance.
  • For monopole masses near 10-100 GeV, the new Parker-like constraints on the production cross-section are competitive with direct laboratory searches.
  • Applying the same calculation to seed magnetic fields and to Andromeda gives additional, independent constraints that do not rely on the present Milky Way field alone.
  • For magnetic charges below one Dirac charge, where existing accelerator bounds weaken, the Parker-like bounds remain valid and can dominate for small charges.
  • Cosmic-ray-ISM interactions also generate magnetic dipole moments that face analogous but much weaker Parker-like bounds.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the cosmic-ray ISM flux is truly unavoidable, then any viable light monopole model must suppress the $pp\to MM$ cross-section below the reference values, otherwise the Milky Way field could not have been built up; this turns galactic magnetodynamics into a generic coupling test.
  • The same flux should reach Earth as an isotropic monopole background, so existing or future large detectors placed underground could search for it directly; the paper leaves that signal analysis for future work.
  • Because the flux scales with gas density and cosmic-ray intensity, mapping the ISM column spatially and applying the same bound to dense or starburst galaxies would likely sharpen or weaken the limits in a predictable, testable way.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper proposes that cosmic-ray protons interacting with interstellar-medium protons produce magnetic monopoles, generating an "irreducible" astrophysical monopole flux independent of primordial relic abundance. Using MadGraph5 with a point-like spin-1/2 monopole model and an unknown overall cross-section normalization κ, the authors compute differential fluxes for Drell-Yan and photon-fusion channels (Sec. 2). They generalize the Parker bound to relativistic monopoles with extended energy spectra (Sec. 3, App. A), extend it to seed-field disruption (Sec. 4), apply the bounds to the Milky Way and Andromeda, and report limits on σ_ref(m), including an exclusion of M ≲ 9 GeV from the Galactic Parker-like bound and competitive constraints around 10–100 GeV. They also sketch implications for fractional magnetic charges and magnetic dipoles.

Significance. The main conceptual contribution—a cosmology-independent, persistent astrophysical monopole source from cosmic-ray–ISM collisions—is interesting and clearly distinct from earlier cosmological Parker-bound analyses. The derivation of the relativistic energy gain (App. A) is internally consistent, and the comparison strategy through κ is a clean way to present limits that are proportional to an unknown production cross-section. If the flux normalization can be made robust, the constraints would be genuinely new and would fill a gap at masses ≲100 GeV for charges below roughly 0.1g_D, where collider bounds may not apply. The paper is also honest in stating that the ISM column-density uncertainty spans orders of magnitude, but that admission directly limits the strength of the present quantitative claims.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 2, Eq. (2.2)] The entire quantitative program is normalized by the adopted ISM column density n⊥_ISM ≃ (1 cm^-3)(1 kpc) in Eq. (2.2), and all Parker-like limits in Secs. 3–4 and Fig. 4 inherit that normalization linearly. The paragraph immediately after Eq. (2.2) concedes that the ISM density varies by "few orders of magnitude" across the Galaxy, but the paper never computes a cosmic-ray-weighted or path-length-weighted effective column from an ISM model or a cosmic-ray propagation model. If the effective column for the monopole-producing collisions is an order of magnitude below the adopted value, the allowed σ_ref curves in Fig. 4 shift upward by the same factor, and the claimed exclusion M ≲ 9 GeV (Sec. 3, after Fig. 2) and the competitiveness at 10–100 GeV (Sec. 7) are correspondingly weakened. This is not a flaw in the bound logic, but the headline quantitative claims are conditional on an unquantified normalization; please either compute the effective n⊥_ISM or present all limits as explicit functions of it.
  2. [Sec. 4 and Fig. 4] The extended Parker-like limits for Andromeda are described as "first constraints" on disruption of its galactic magnetic fields and seeds, but they assume that the cosmic-ray flux in M31 equals the local Milky Way value with no estimate of the associated uncertainty (Sec. 3, first paragraph). Since the extended-Parker limits also depend on the assumed seed field B0 = 10^-20 G, the absence of any propagated uncertainty or parameter variation makes it difficult to judge whether the Andromeda curves in Fig. 4 are robust or are a consequence of the assumed CR-flux equality. Please state the sensitivity of the curves to these inputs, at least at the factor-of-few level, if the Andromeda claim is to be maintained.
  3. [Sec. 5] The claim that for g ≪ g_D the new Parker-like bounds can exceed the SLIM bounds relies on the scaling σ_ref ∝ g^-3 for the Parker bounds versus σ_ref ∝ g^-4 for SLIM, but no explicit derivation is given for the g-dependence of the cosmic-ray-ISM flux and of the energy-gain regimes used in Eqs. (3.2)–(3.4). Since both dF/dγ (Eq. 2.2) and Emag (Eq. 3.1) depend on g, the stated advantage at small g should be demonstrated with the relevant scaling of the computed flux, rather than asserted from the flux constraint F ∝ g^-1.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (3.5)] The illustrative power-law flux is stated to be nonzero for energies in the E < Emag regime, yet the integral is performed to E = ∞; please clarify the assumption or truncate the integral at Emag.
  2. [Sec. 6, after Eq. (6.3)] The sentence beginning "Eq. (6.2) can be compared with the Parker bound on magnetic monopoles Fmon ... on the dipole moments from LHC searches at low masses" is missing a verb or predicate and should be reworded for clarity.
  3. [Fig. 3] The right-panel legend entries such as "flux (×10^-6)" and "flux (×5×10^-6)" do not define what is being plotted; please state explicitly whether these are scaled fluxes, labels for different flux normalizations, or some other quantity.
  4. [Sec. 2, footnote 4] The statement that spin-1/2, spin-0, and spin-1 monopole cross-sections differ by roughly an order of magnitude relies on Ref. [30]; it would be helpful to state the model validity range explicitly, since the rest of the paper uses the spin-1/2 model as the reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Parker-like limits follow from energy conservation applied to an independently computed cosmic-ray-ISM flux; the only self-citation (Ref. [47]) supplies simulation methodology and comparison data, not the central claim.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. The ISM-produced monopole flux of Eq. (2.2) is computed from the adopted cosmic-ray spectrum, MadGraph-simulated pp->MM cross-sections, and an assumed ISM column density; the generalized Parker bound in Eqs. (3.2)-(3.4) and the extended bound in Eq. (4.1) then constrain the unknown normalization kappa of that flux by requiring that energy drained from the galactic magnetic field not exceed its regeneration budget. No equation defines the predicted flux in terms of the bound, and the headline statement that monopoles with masses below about 9 GeV are excluded is a conditional exclusion for the benchmark cross-section, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The principal fragility is the adopted column n_ISM^perp = (1 cm^-3) x (1 kpc) in Eq. (2.2), which the paper immediately concedes can vary by 'few orders of magnitude' across the Galaxy and whose detailed evaluation is 'left for future work'; this is an unquantified input that weakens the numerical limits if the relevant column is smaller, but it is not a circular reduction. The only self-citation is Ref. [47] by two of the present authors, used for the simulation method, the kappa-normalization comparison convention, and the RICE/SLIM reinterpretations displayed in Fig. 4; these are methodological and comparison inputs, not the source of the new Parker-like limits, so the self-citation is not load-bearing. The score of 2 reflects this minor methodological self-citation rather than any circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central constraints rest on a handful of model inputs: the unknown monopole production cross-section, the assumed ISM column density, the assumed seed field strength, and the benchmark monopole model. None of these are derived from the Parker-bound argument itself, and the paper presents them transparently. The key liberty is the n_ISM choice, whose order-of-magnitude uncertainty propagates directly into the strength of the constraints.

free parameters (4)
  • Cross-section normalization kappa
    Overall normalization of sigma(pp to MM) relative to the simulated benchmark (Eq. 2.1). It is an unknown parameter constrained by data; the paper presents limits as bounds on sigma_ref. It is not fitted to data in this work.
  • ISM column density n_ISM = 1 cm^-3 x 1 kpc
    Assumed characteristic value used in the flux integral (Eq. 2.2). Acknowledged to vary by several orders of magnitude across the Galaxy, which directly shifts the constraints.
  • Seed magnetic field B0 (extended Parker bound) = 1e-20 G
    Used for the extended Parker-like limits in Sec. 4 and Fig. 4. The bound becomes stronger for smaller seed fields; B0 = 1e-20 G is a low-end but plausible choice.
  • Benchmark monopole model (spin-1/2, velocity-independent)
    Reference model for production cross-sections. Cross-sections differ by up to an order of magnitude for spin-0 or spin-1 models, which would alter the numerical limits.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Electric-magnetic duality provides a reliable perturbative framework for monopole pair production cross-sections in pp collisions.
    Adopted from collider searches (Refs. [29,31,49,50]); the paper acknowledges non-perturbative couplings make robust predictions challenging.
  • domain assumption The local cosmic ray flux is representative of the Galactic cosmic ray flux over the field-regeneration timescale.
    Used in Eq. (2.2); the paper argues cosmic ray rates are not expected to vary by more than a factor of a few over relevant timescales.
  • domain assumption Monopoles produced in pairs do not recombine or annihilate efficiently after production.
    Stated in Sec. 2; if they did, the effective flux would be reduced.
  • domain assumption The galactic dynamo model with regeneration timescale tau describes magnetic field sustainability.
    Used in Eqs. (3.2) and (4.1); a standard but idealized treatment.
  • standard math Energy gained by a monopole crossing a coherent field region is given by Eq. (3.3) in both non-relativistic and relativistic regimes.
    Derived in App. A from the Lorentz force equation; assumes constant B and isotropic initial flux.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cosmology-Independent Constraints on Irreducible Magnetic Monopole Background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TC7FZ2OQ

@misc{pith2026241215132,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cosmology-Independent Constraints on Irreducible Magnetic Monopole Background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TC7FZ2OQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.15132}
}
read the original abstract

We present a novel mechanism for the irreducible production of magnetic monopoles from interactions of cosmic rays and interstellar medium (ISM). Resulting monopoles drain energy from galactic magnetic fields, disrupting their formation and sustainability. We generalize conventional Parker bounds to monopoles with extended energy spectrum and, considering cosmic ray ISM monopole production, set novel constraints from disruption of Milky Way Galactic magnetic fields and their seeds. Further, we set first constraints on disruption of galactic magnetic fields and their seeds of Andromeda galaxy, with results being competitive with distinct existing bounds. Unlike Parker limits of previous works that relied on cosmological monopoles, our constraints are independent of cosmological monopole production or their primordial abundance. Besides, we estimate new constraints on dipole magnetic moments generated from cosmic ray ISM interactions. We discuss implications for monopoles with generalized magnetic charges.

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

  1. Self-Consistent Parker Bound on Magnetic Monopoles

    hep-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    A self-consistent Parker bound on magnetic monopoles is derived using the galactic mean-field dynamo eigenmode and turbulent field seeding and acceleration, producing modified flux limits at low and intermediate masse...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [47]

    Iguro, R

    S. Iguro, R. Plestid and V. Takhistov, Monopoles from an Atmospheric Fixed Target Experiment, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128 (2022) 201101 [ 2111.12091]

    arXiv 2022

  2. [17]

    Zhang, S.-H

    C. Zhang, S.-H. Zhang, B. Fu, J.-F. Zhang and X. Zhang, On the cosmological abundance of magnetic monopoles, JHEP 08 (2024) 220 [ 2404.04926]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [1]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Quantised singularities in the electromagnetic field, , Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 133 (1931) 60

    1931

  4. [2]

    ’t Hooft, Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge Theories , Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge Theories , Nucl. Phys. B 79 (1974) 276

    1974

  5. [3]

    A. M. Polyakov, Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory , JETP Lett. 20 (1974) 194

    1974

  6. [4]

    A. H. Guth and S. H. H. Tye, Phase Transitions and Magnetic Monopole Production in the Very Early Universe, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980) 631

    work page 1980

  7. [5]

    N. E. Mavromatos and V. A. Mitsou, Magnetic monopoles revisited: Models and searches at colliders and in the Cosmos , Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35 (2020) 2030012 [ 2005.05100]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [6]

    V. A. Rubakov, Superheavy Magnetic Monopoles and Proton Decay , JETP Lett. 33 (1981) 644

    work page 1981

Show all 79 references
  1. [7]

    V. a. Rubakov and M. s. Serebryakov, ANOMALOUS BARYON NUMBER NONCONSERVATION IN THE PRESENCE OF SU(5) MONOPOLES , Nucl. Phys. B 218 (1983) 240

    1983

  2. [8]

    C. G. Callan, Jr., Monopole Catalysis of Baryon Decay , Nucl. Phys. B 212 (1983) 391. – 16 –

    1983

  3. [9]

    Ueno et al., Search for GUT monopoles at Super–Kamiokande, Astropart

    Super-Kamiokande collaboration, K. Ueno et al., Search for GUT monopoles at Super–Kamiokande, Astropart. Phys. 36 (2012) 131 [ 1203.0940]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [10]

    IceCube collaboration, M. G. Aartsen et al., Searches for Relativistic Magnetic Monopoles in IceCube, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) 133 [ 1511.01350]

    2016 arXiv

  5. [11]

    Ambrosio et al., Final results of magnetic monopole searches with the MACRO experiment, Eur

    MACRO collaboration, M. Ambrosio et al., Final results of magnetic monopole searches with the MACRO experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C 25 (2002) 511 [ hep-ex/0207020]

    2002 arXiv

  6. [12]

    E. N. Parker, The Origin of Magnetic Fields , Astrophys. J. 160 (1970) 383

    1970

  7. [13]

    M. S. Turner, E. N. Parker and T. J. Bogdan, Magnetic Monopoles and the Survival of Galactic Magnetic Fields, Phys. Rev. D 26 (1982) 1296

    1982

  8. [14]

    F. C. Adams, M. Fatuzzo, K. Freese, G. Tarle, R. Watkins and M. S. Turner, Extension of the Parker bound on the flux of magnetic monopoles , Phys. Rev. Lett. 70 (1993) 2511

    1993

  9. [15]

    Rephaeli and M

    Y. Rephaeli and M. S. Turner, The Magnetic Monopole Flux and the Survival of Intracluster Magnetic Fields, Phys. Lett. B 121 (1983) 115

    1983

  10. [16]

    M. J. Lewis, K. Freese and G. Tarle, Protogalactic extension of the Parker bound , Phys. Rev. D 62 (2000) 025002 [ astro-ph/9911095]

    2000 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Kobayashi and D

    T. Kobayashi and D. Perri, Parker bound and monopole pair production from primordial magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 063016 [ 2207.08246]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Chakrabortty, G

    J. Chakrabortty, G. Lazarides, R. Maji and Q. Shafi, Primordial Monopoles and Strings, Inflation, and Gravity Waves , JHEP 02 (2021) 114 [ 2011.01838]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [20]

    T. W. Kephart, G. K. Leontaris and Q. Shafi, Magnetic Monopoles and Free Fractionally Charged States at Accelerators and in Cosmic Rays , JHEP 10 (2017) 176 [ 1707.08067]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Y. M. Cho and D. Maison, Monopoles in Weinberg-Salam model, Phys. Lett. B 391 (1997) 360 [hep-th/9601028]

    1997 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Y. M. Cho, K. Kim and J. H. Yoon, Finite Energy Electroweak Dyon, Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) 67 [ 1305.1699]

    2015 arXiv

  16. [23]

    Ellis, N

    J. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos and T. You, The Price of an Electroweak Monopole , Phys. Lett. B 756 (2016) 29 [ 1602.01745]

    2016 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Arunasalam and A

    S. Arunasalam and A. Kobakhidze, Electroweak monopoles and the electroweak phase transition , Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 444 [ 1702.04068]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [25]

    Ellis, N

    J. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos and T. You, Light-by-Light Scattering Constraint on Born-Infeld Theory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 261802 [ 1703.08450]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [26]

    M. Arai, F. Blaschke, M. Eto and N. Sakai, Localization of the Standard Model via the Higgs mechanism and a finite electroweak monopole from non-compact five dimensions , PTEP 2018 (2018) 083B04 [ 1802.06649]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Aad et al., Search for Magnetic Monopoles and Stable High-Electric-Charge Objects in 13 Tev Proton-Proton Collisions with the ATLAS Detector , Phys

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for Magnetic Monopoles and Stable High-Electric-Charge Objects in 13 Tev Proton-Proton Collisions with the ATLAS Detector , Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 (2020) 031802 [ 1905.10130]. – 17 –

    2020 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Aad et al., Search for magnetic monopoles and stable particles with high electric charges in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector , JHEP 11 (2023) 112 [2308.04835]

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for magnetic monopoles and stable particles with high electric charges in √s = 13 TeV pp collisions with the ATLAS detector , JHEP 11 (2023) 112 [2308.04835]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Aad et al., Search for magnetic monopole pair production in ultraperipheral Pb+Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.36 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , 2408.11035

    ATLAS collaboration, G. Aad et al., Search for magnetic monopole pair production in ultraperipheral Pb+Pb collisions at √sNN = 5.36 TeV with the ATLAS detector at the LHC , 2408.11035

    arXiv

  23. [30]

    Acharya et al., Magnetic Monopole Search with the Full MoEDAL Trapping Detector in 13 TeV pp Collisions Interpreted in Photon-Fusion and Drell-Yan Production, Phys

    MoEDAL collaboration, B. Acharya et al., Magnetic Monopole Search with the Full MoEDAL Trapping Detector in 13 TeV pp Collisions Interpreted in Photon-Fusion and Drell-Yan Production, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 021802 [ 1903.08491]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Acharya et al., Search for highly-ionizing particles in pp collisions at the LHC’s Run-1 using the prototype MoEDAL detector , Eur

    MoEDAL collaboration, B. Acharya et al., Search for highly-ionizing particles in pp collisions at the LHC’s Run-1 using the prototype MoEDAL detector , Eur. Phys. J. C 82 (2022) 694 [2112.05806]

    2022 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Acharya et al., Search for Highly-Ionizing Particles in pp Collisions During LHC Run-2 Using the Full MoEDAL Detector , 2311.06509

    MoEDAL collaboration, B. Acharya et al., Search for Highly-Ionizing Particles in pp Collisions During LHC Run-2 Using the Full MoEDAL Detector , 2311.06509

    arXiv

  26. [33]

    Acharya et al., Search for magnetic monopoles produced via the Schwinger mechanism, Nature 602 (2022) 63 [ 2106.11933]

    MoEDAL collaboration, B. Acharya et al., Search for magnetic monopoles produced via the Schwinger mechanism, Nature 602 (2022) 63 [ 2106.11933]

    2022 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Acharya et al., MoEDAL Search in the CMS Beam Pipe for Magnetic Monopoles Produced via the Schwinger Effect , Phys

    MoEDAL collaboration, B. Acharya et al., MoEDAL Search in the CMS Beam Pipe for Magnetic Monopoles Produced via the Schwinger Effect , Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 (2024) 071803 [2402.15682]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Patrizii and M

    L. Patrizii and M. Spurio, Status of Searches for Magnetic Monopoles , Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 65 (2015) 279 [ 1510.07125]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Giacomelli, A

    G. Giacomelli, A. M. Rossi, G. Vannini, A. Bussiere, G. Baroni, S. Di Liberto et al., Search for Magnetic Monopoles at the CERN-ISR with Plastic Detectors , Nuovo Cim. A 28 (1975) 21

    1975

  30. [37]

    Hoffmann, G

    H. Hoffmann, G. Kantardjian, S. Di Liberto, F. Meddi, G. Romano and G. Rosa, A New Search for Magnetic Monopoles at the CERN ISR with Plastic Detectors , Lett. Nuovo Cim. 23 (1978) 357

    1978

  31. [38]

    Abulencia et al., Direct search for Dirac magnetic monopoles in p¯p collisions at√s = 1.96 TeV, Phys

    CDF collaboration, A. Abulencia et al., Direct search for Dirac magnetic monopoles in p¯p collisions at√s = 1.96 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 201801 [ hep-ex/0509015]

    2006 arXiv

  32. [39]

    G. R. Kalbfleisch, W. Luo, K. A. Milton, E. H. Smith and M. G. Strauss, Limits on production of magnetic monopoles utilizing samples from the D0 and CDF detectors at the Tevatron , Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 052002 [ hep-ex/0306045]

    2004 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Fryberger, T

    D. Fryberger, T. E. Coan, K. Kinoshita and P. B. Price, Search for Highly Ionizing Particles in e+e− Collisions at √s = 29-GeV, Phys. Rev. D 29 (1984) 1524

    1984

  34. [41]

    Musset, M

    P. Musset, M. Price and E. Lohrmann, Search for Magnetic Monopoles in Electron - Positron Collisions at 34-GeV Center-of-mass Energy , Phys. Lett. B 128 (1983) 333

    1983

  35. [42]

    Kinoshita, M

    K. Kinoshita, M. Fujii, K. Nakajima, P. B. Price and S. Tasaka, Search for Highly Ionizing Particles in e+e− Annihilations at√s = 50-GeV to 60.8-GeV, Phys. Lett. B 228 (1989) 543

    1989

  36. [43]

    J. L. Pinfold, R. Du, K. Kinoshita, B. Lorazo, M. Regimbald and B. Price, A Search for highly ionizing particles produced at the OPAL intersection point at LEP , Phys. Lett. B 316 (1993) 407. – 18 –

    1993

  37. [44]

    Kinoshita, R

    K. Kinoshita, R. Du, G. Giacomelli, L. Patrizii, F. Predieri, P. Serra et al., Search for highly ionizing particles in e+ e- annihilations at s**(1/2) = 91.1-GeV , Phys. Rev. D 46 (1992) R881

    1992

  38. [45]

    Aktas et al., A Direct search for stable magnetic monopoles produced in positron-proton collisions at HERA , Eur

    H1 collaboration, A. Aktas et al., A Direct search for stable magnetic monopoles produced in positron-proton collisions at HERA , Eur. Phys. J. C 41 (2005) 133 [ hep-ex/0501039]

    2005 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Fukuda et al., Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos, Phys

    Super-Kamiokande collaboration, Y. Fukuda et al., Evidence for oscillation of atmospheric neutrinos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 (1998) 1562 [ hep-ex/9807003]

    1998 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A. K. Drukier and S. Nussinov, Monopole Pair Creation in Energetic Collisions: Is It Possible?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 102

    1982

  41. [49]

    Baines, N

    S. Baines, N. E. Mavromatos, V. A. Mitsou, J. L. Pinfold and A. Santra, Monopole production via photon fusion and Drell–Yan processes: MadGraph implementation and perturbativity via velocity-dependent coupling and magnetic moment as novel features , Eur. Phys. J. C 78 (2018) 9...

    2018 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Abbiendi et al., Search for Dirac magnetic monopoles in e+e- collisions with the OPAL detector at LEP2 , Phys

    OPAL collaboration, G. Abbiendi et al., Search for Dirac magnetic monopoles in e+e- collisions with the OPAL detector at LEP2 , Phys. Lett. B 663 (2008) 37 [ 0707.0404]

    2008 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Alwall, R

    J. Alwall, R. Frederix, S. Frixione, V. Hirschi, F. Maltoni, O. Mattelaer et al., The automated computation of tree-level and next-to-leading order differential cross sections, and their matching to parton shower simulations , JHEP 07 (2014) 079 [ 1405.0301]

    2014 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Bertone, S

    NNPDF collaboration, V. Bertone, S. Carrazza, N. P. Hartland and J. Rojo, Illuminating the photon content of the proton within a global PDF analysis , SciPost Phys. 5 (2018) 008 [1712.07053]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    L. N. Epele, H. Fanchiotti, C. A. G. Canal, V. A. Mitsou and V. Vento, Looking for magnetic monopoles at LHC with diphoton events , Eur. Phys. J. Plus 127 (2012) 60 [ 1205.6120]

    2012 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys

    Particle Data Group collaboration, S. Navas et al., Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 030001

    2024

  47. [55]

    A. W. Strong, I. V. Moskalenko and V. S. Ptuskin, Cosmic-ray propagation and interactions in the Galaxy, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 57 (2007) 285 [ astro-ph/0701517]

    2007 arXiv

  48. [56]

    K. M. Ferriere, The interstellar environment of our galaxy , Rev. Mod. Phys. 73 (2001) 1031 [astro-ph/0106359]

    2001 arXiv

  49. [57]

    A. M. Hopkins and J. F. Beacom, On the normalisation of the cosmic star formation history , Astrophys. J. 651 (2006) 142 [ astro-ph/0601463]

    2006 arXiv

  50. [58]

    A., Wall, J

    Jackson, C. A., Wall, J. V., Shaver, P. A., Kellermann, K. I., Hook, I. M. and Hawkins, M. R. S., The parkes quarter-jansky flat-spectrum sample* - i. sample selection and source identifications, A&A 386 (2002) 97

    2002

  51. [59]

    Le and C

    T. Le and C. D. Dermer, On the Redshift Distribution of Gamma Ray Bursts in the Swift Era , Astrophys. J. 661 (2007) 394 [ astro-ph/0610043]

    2007 arXiv

  52. [60]

    L. M. Widrow, Origin of galactic and extragalactic magnetic fields , Rev. Mod. Phys. 74 (2002) 775 [astro-ph/0207240]. – 19 –

    2002 arXiv

  53. [61]

    R. Beck, A. Brandenburg, D. Moss, A. Shukurov and D. Sokoloff, Galactic Magnetism: Recent developments and perspectives, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 34 (1996) 155

    1996

  54. [62]

    J. L. Han, R. Beck and E. M. Berkhuijsen, New clues to the magnetic field structure of m31 , Astron. Astrophys. 335 (1998) 1117 [ astro-ph/9805023]

    1998 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Fletcher, E

    A. Fletcher, E. M. Berkhuijsen, R. Beck and A. Shukurov, The Magnetic field of M 31 from multi-wavelength radio polarization observations , Astron. Astrophys. 414 (2004) 53 [astro-ph/0310258]

    2004 arXiv

  56. [64]

    T. G. Arshakian, R. Beck, M. Krause and D. Sokoloff, Evolution of magnetic fields in galaxies and future observational tests with the Square Kilometre Array , Astron. Astrophys. 494 (2009) 21 [0810.3114]

    2009 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Brandenburg and E

    A. Brandenburg and E. Ntormousi, Galactic dynamos, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 61 (2023) 561

    2023

  58. [66]

    M. J. Rees, The origin and cosmogonic implications of seed magnetic fields. , Q. J. R. Astron. Soc. 28 (1987) 197

    1987

  59. [67]

    Enqvist, Primordial magnetic fields , Int

    K. Enqvist, Primordial magnetic fields , Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 7 (1998) 331 [astro-ph/9803196]

    1998 arXiv

  60. [68]

    D. P. Hogan, D. Z. Besson, J. P. Ralston, I. Kravchenko and D. Seckel, Relativistic Magnetic Monopole Flux Constraints from RICE , Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008) 075031 [ 0806.2129]

    2008 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Balestra et al., Magnetic Monopole Search at high altitude with the SLIM experiment , Eur

    S. Balestra et al., Magnetic Monopole Search at high altitude with the SLIM experiment , Eur. Phys. J. C 55 (2008) 57 [ 0801.4913]

    2008 arXiv

  62. [70]

    COMPETE collaboration, J. R. Cudell, V. V. Ezhela, P. Gauron, K. Kang, Y. V. Kuyanov, S. B. Lugovsky et al., Benchmarks for the forward observables at RHIC, the Tevatron Run II and the LHC , Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 (2002) 201801 [ hep-ph/0206172]

    2002 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Kobayashi and D

    T. Kobayashi and D. Perri, Parker bounds on monopoles with arbitrary charge from galactic and primordial magnetic fields , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 083005 [ 2307.07553]

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    S. P. Ahlen, Stopping-power formula for magnetic monopoles , Phys. Rev. D 17 (1978) 229

    1978

  65. [73]

    S. D. Wick, T. W. Kephart, T. J. Weiler and P. L. Biermann, Signatures for a cosmic flux of magnetic monopoles, Astropart. Phys. 18 (2003) 663 [ astro-ph/0001233]

    2003 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Brummer and J

    F. Brummer and J. Jaeckel, Minicharges and Magnetic Monopoles , Phys. Lett. B 675 (2009) 360 [0902.3615]

    2009 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Hook and J

    A. Hook and J. Huang, Bounding millimagnetically charged particles with magnetars , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 055010 [ 1705.01107]

    2017 arXiv

  68. [76]

    M. L. Graesser, I. M. Shoemaker and N. T. Arellano, Milli-magnetic monopole dark matter and the survival of galactic magnetic fields , JHEP 03 (2022) 105 [ 2105.05769]

    2022 arXiv

  69. [77]

    J. L. Stone, ed., MONOPOLE ’83. PROCEEDINGS, NATO ADVANCED RESEARCH WORKSHOP, ANN ARBOR, USA, OCTOBER 6-9, 1983 , vol. 111, 1984. 10.1007/978-1-4757-0375-7

    1983 doi

  70. [78]

    A. J. Long and T. Vachaspati, Implications of a Primordial Magnetic Field for Magnetic Monopoles, Axions, and Dirac Neutrinos , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 103522 [ 1504.03319]. – 20 –

    2015 arXiv

  71. [79]

    Fortin and T

    J.-F. Fortin and T. M. P. Tait, Collider Constraints on Dipole-Interacting Dark Matter , Phys. Rev. D 85 (2012) 063506 [ 1103.3289]. – 21 –

    2012 arXiv

Pith tools

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