Microscopic composite systems bound by strong gravity in extra dimensions as candidates for dark matter

V. V. Flambaum

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 63 references

Microscopic composite systems bound by strong gravity in extra dimensions as candidates for dark matter

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that dark matter may consist of microscopic nuggets of Standard Model particles bound by the strengthened short-distance gravity predicted by the ADD extra-dimension model.

desk verdict A novel but speculative dark-matter proposal whose central variational claim does not survive contact with its own equations; the N~1600 threshold rests on an ad hoc equality. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.15476 v2 pith:GQQRULPC submitted 2025-01-26 hep-ph astro-ph.COnucl-thphysics.atom-ph

V. V. Flambaum This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.COnucl-thphysics.atom-ph PACS 04.50.-h95.35.+d

keywords extradimensionsADDmodeldarkmattercandidatesgravitationallyboundstatesquarknuggetsstronggravityatshortrangecross-section-to-massratiovariationalestimate

topics Dark Matter

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

The paper proposes that dark matter could be made of microscopic nuggets of ordinary Standard Model particles—quarks, neutrinos, or axions—held together not by nuclear forces but by gravity that becomes much stronger at short distances in the ADD model of extra dimensions. It argues that the modified gravitational potential $1/r^{n+1}$ can bind a few thousand fermions into a small, stable, neutral object whose cross-section-to-mass ratio is small enough to evade existing dark-matter limits. Starting from a bell-shaped density ansatz, the paper derives a threshold of about 1600 identical fermions needed for binding, set by balancing the modified gravitational energy against the kinetic energy and assuming gravity and electromagnetism are comparable at the cutoff radius. If this picture is right, dark matter could be dense composite objects that interact strongly with ordinary matter when hit, but are so rare and small that they pass through detectors almost unnoticed.

What carries the argument

The central object is the variational bell-shaped density ansatz $n(r) = N (2/\pi R^2)^{3/2} e^{-2r^2/R^2}$, whose single parameter $R$ is fixed by minimising the total energy $E = E_{kin} + E_{grav}$. The machinery is the pairing of the ultrarelativistic fermion-gas kinetic energy $E_{kin} \approx 1.2 N^{4/3}/R$ with the regularised ADD gravitational energy (Eqs. 10–11), which together convert the bound-state condition into the threshold $N^{2/3} \gtrsim (r_c/R_{(n)})^n / (G m^2)$. The numerical estimate $N \approx 1600$ enters through the assumed equality of gravitational and electromagnetic interactions at the cutoff radius, Eq. (14).

What would settle it

A first-principles many-body calculation for $N \approx 1600$ identical fermions with the full ADD potential and a physical cutoff that returns total energy greater than or equal to zero for every radius $R$ would disprove the bound-state claim; for $n \ge 3$, a direct check of whether $E(R)$ has a finite minimum or decreases monotonically, as the paper's own Eqs. (10)–(11) suggest, would settle whether a small-radius minimizer exists.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the ADD-modified gravitational potential $V(r) = -G m^2 R_{(n)}^n / r^{n+1}$ for $r \ll R_{(n)}$ makes small composite bound states of Standard Model fermions energetically possible, with radius $R \sim r_c$ near the unknown short-distance cutoff. Combining the kinetic energy of an ultrarelativistic gas of fermions, $E_{kin} \approx 1.2 N^{4/3}/R$, with the regularised gravitational energy of Eqs. (10)–(11), the bound-state condition $E_{kin} + E_{grav} < 0$ gives $N^{2/3} \gtrsim (r_c / R_{(n)})^n / (G m^2)$. Using the assumption that at $r_c$ the singular gravity is comparable to the Coulomb interaction, $G m^2 R_{(n)}^n / r_c^{n+1} \sim \alpha/r_c$, the paper obtains $N \gtrsim 1/\alpha^{3/2} \approx 1600$ identical fermions. It then argues that these nuggets escape the survival and detection constraints that limit conventional quark nuggets, because their radius near $r_c$ is far smaller, suppressing evaporation and shrinking the interaction cross section by a factor $B^{2/3}$.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that at the short-distance cutoff $r_c$ the modified gravitational interaction between constituent particles is roughly as strong as the electromagnetic interaction (Eq. 14); this equality is assumed rather than derived, and it is what fixes the threshold of about 1600 particles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Gravitationally bound nuggets made of quarks, neutrinos, or axions would have cross-section-to-mass ratios below the astrophysical limit $\sigma/M < 0.1$ cm$^2$/g (about 10 fm$^2$/GeV), making them viable dark matter candidates.
Because their radius is near the tiny cutoff $r_c$, their surface area is far smaller than conventional quark nuggets, suppressing evaporation in the hot primordial plasma and making survival easier.
Existing dark-matter detectors could see gravitational quark nuggets with baryon number up to about $10^{18}$, while kilometre-scale neutrino telescopes and seismological networks could probe much larger baryon numbers.
The constraints placed on conventional quark nuggets do not transfer directly to gravitational nuggets, whose cross section is smaller by a factor $B^{2/3}$; the paper estimates that current seismic, radar, and neutrino searches impose no significant additional limits.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial extension: if quark-based nuggets make up dark matter, the same binding mechanism should also apply to any stable fermion species, including sterile neutrinos and axions, extending the dark-matter parameter space to masses far below the quark scale.
Editorial extension: the evaporation-suppression argument implies that much smaller baryon numbers than the conventional survival bound could survive, meaning gravitational nuggets might be light enough for current direct-detection experiments to reach.
Editorial extension: because the interaction cross-section scales as $B^{2/3}$ relative to conventional quark nuggets, the same seismic, radar, and neutrino observatories could, with recalibrated sensitivity, either discover or rule out gravitational nuggets in a mass range that is currently unconstrained.

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

Colleague,

The honest thing to say about this one: the new combination is real, but the central calculation does not hold up.

What is new: applying the variational Fermi-gas method to the ADD-modified gravitational potential to ask whether ~10^3 fermions can bind into small composite dark-matter candidates. That specific scenario does not appear in the earlier Flambaum-Samsonov papers, and the survival argument in Section IV is genuinely nice - a nugget with radius r_c ~ 1/TeV has a surface area suppressed by ~10^-20 relative to Witten-Zhitnitsky nuggets of B~10^18, so evaporation in the primordial plasma is far less threatening. The paper also gives an honest list of caveats: no first-order QCD transition, no concrete formation mechanism, and no full quantum-gravity treatment of the cutoff.

The soft spot is load-bearing. For n>2, the paper's own expressions give E(R) = A/R - B/(R^3 r_c^{n-2}). That has no interior minimum: it goes to -∞ as R→0, has only a local maximum, and approaches zero from above at large R. So the statement that 'in all n cases the minimum of total energy is achieved for R~r_c' is not a variational result. The minimum is at the cutoff boundary because the cutoff is imposed by hand. The same problem afflicts n=1 and n=2: the stationary point, when it exists, is not generically at r_c. Then Eq. (14) - the assertion that modified gravity at r_c is comparable to α/r_c - is an input, not a derivation. Without it, neither the size R~r_c nor the threshold N~1600 follows from the calculation. The authors flag that a proper theory is needed, which is honest, but that means the abstract's claim that these nuggets are 'viable candidates for dark matter' is not supported by the presented derivation.

Proportionately: this is a speculative short paper, not a data-driven claim. The variational error is a genuine internal contradiction with its own equations, so it cannot stand as a derivation. But it is not nonsense; it is a compact, clearly written sketch with one interesting survival mechanism. A serious referee could help the author either fix the variational analysis (e.g., using a proper self-consistent solution or a less singular potential) or reframe the paper as a purely heuristic motivation.

My bottom line: I would not cite the threshold N~1600 as a result, and I would not accept the paper as it stands. But I would send it to peer review, because the idea is relevant and the flaws are specific enough to be actionable. If the author engages seriously with the cutoff problem, there is a publishable speculative note here.

Read it for yourself if you work on dark-matter candidates or extra dimensions; otherwise it is a one-hour read that will likely frustrate you more than it informs.

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that in the ADD model with n extra dimensions, the enhanced short-distance gravitational potential ~1/r^{n+1} can bind large numbers of Standard Model fermions (quarks, neutrinos, axions) into small, electrically neutral nuggets of radius R ~ r_c, where r_c is a cutoff radius. Using a Gaussian trial density and an ultrarelativistic Fermi-gas kinetic energy, the paper claims that the total energy is minimized at R ~ r_c for all n and derives a threshold N >~ 1/alpha^{3/2} ≈ 1600 via the auxiliary assumption that gravity and electromagnetism are comparable at r_c. The paper also discusses formation mechanisms, survival against evaporation, and observational limits, concluding that such nuggets are viable dark-matter candidates with a small cross-section-to-mass ratio.

Significance. If the central derivation were sound, the paper would identify a qualitatively new dark-matter candidate with distinctive properties (tiny radius, strong-interaction cross section, very large mass), and it would connect dark matter to the ADD extra-dimensions scenario. The paper is clearly written, honestly acknowledges that a full theory of the cutoff is absent, and engages with the existing quark-nugget literature. However, the central variational claim fails for the physically important case n >= 3, and the quantitative threshold N ~ 1600 is not derived from the ADD model but rests on an unvalidated equality. The significance is therefore conditional on a dynamical mechanism that the manuscript does not provide.

major comments (3)

[Section III, Eqs. (7) and (11b)] For n > 2, combining the kinetic energy (7) with the gravitational energy (11b) gives E(R) = 1.2 N^{4/3}/R - C N^2 G m^2 R_(n)^n / (r_c^{n-2} R^3), which tends to -infinity as R -> 0 and has no local minimum; the statement that 'in all n cases the minimum of total energy is achieved for R ~ r_c' is therefore not a variational result but an artifact of imposing the cutoff at r_c. For n = 1 and n = 2 the stationary point, when it exists, depends on N and on the model parameters and does not generically coincide with r_c, so the claim is not supported in those cases either.
[Section III, Eq. (14)] The equality G m^2 R_(n)^n / r_c^{n+1} ~ alpha / r_c is introduced as an assumption rather than derived from the ADD model, and it is the sole input that fixes the scale R ~ r_c and yields the threshold N ~ alpha^{-3/2} ~ 1600 in Eq. (15). Without this assumption the calculation gives no quantitative prediction for the bound-state size or the required particle number; the paper itself concedes in the following paragraph that a proper theory defining r_c is beyond its scope, which confirms that the central numbers are inputs rather than outputs.
[Section III, Eqs. (6) and (7)] The kinetic energy is computed in the ultrarelativistic limit p >~ 1/R >> m, which presupposes that the bound state is already known to be much smaller than the Compton wavelength of the constituent particles. This circularity is never checked for the claimed solution R ~ r_c: if r_c is not much smaller than 1/m, the ultrarelativistic Fermi-gas expression (6) is not applicable, so the variational estimate is not self-consistent.

minor comments (3)

[Section III] There are several typographical errors: 'for the for sake' appears in the discussion after Eq. (10), 'Schr¨odinger' is misspelled before Eq. (3), and 'plazma' and 'barion' appear in Sections IV and V; these should be corrected.
[Section IV] The evaporation-rate comparison assumes a gravitational-nugget surface area A_G ~ 4 pi r_c^2, but the paper does not explain how r_c relates to the physical radius of the nugget for the n=1 and n=2 cases, where the variational radius is not demonstrably equal to r_c.
[References] Reference [54] contains a formatting error ('bf 103' instead of '103'), and the reference list would benefit from a final proofread for consistency of author lists and journal data.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the N≈1600 estimate follows from an explicit assumption, and the dark-matter claim is presented as an illustration, not as a prediction forced by fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central estimate N ≳ 1/α^{3/2} ≈ 1600 depends on Eq. (14), an explicit assumption that the modified gravitational interaction and Standard Model interactions are comparable at the cutoff distance r_c. This is an input, not a quantity fitted to the dark-matter conclusion, and the algebra from Eqs. (12)-(15) is transparent. The statement that the energy minimum occurs at R ~ r_c is asserted rather than rigorously derived; for n > 2 the variational energy E(R) = A/R - B/R^3 has no local minimum, and the boundary at r_c supplies the minimum. That is a mathematical/technical weakness, not circularity, because r_c is an independent input parameter rather than the target prediction. Self-citations such as Ref. [19] (empirical cutoff constraints) and Ref. [50] (Gaussian variational ansatz) are present, but none presupposes the existence or stability of the proposed dark-matter nuggets in a way that would make the conclusion equivalent to its premises. The paper also explicitly labels the N estimate as 'naive' and an 'illustration of a possible outcome,' and states that a proper theory would need additional input. Thus no circular step can be exhibited with the specificity required by the circularity criteria.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on three unproven inputs: the cutoff radius r_c, the equality of gravitational and electromagnetic strengths at that cutoff (Eq. 14), and the variational claim of a minimum at R~rc. The first two are acknowledged as heuristic; the third is mathematically incorrect for n≥3.

free parameters (3)

r_c (gravitational cutoff radius) = not fixed; Eq. (14) or rc = 1/TeV used for estimates
The singular 1/r^{n+1} potential diverges at small r; the paper introduces an arbitrary cutoff r_c to regularize the gravitational energy integrals. The bound-state threshold and all size estimates depend directly on r_c.
R(n) (size of extra dimensions) = experimentally > 30 µm, otherwise free
Appears in the modified gravitational potential and in the ADD relation (1). The paper uses Eq. (14) to eliminate the combination r_c^n/R(n)^n, so R(n) is not directly fitted but is a free parameter of the model.
Gaussian density shape parameter R = set by energy minimization, but the paper claims R ~ rc
The variational radius R is chosen to minimize total energy. The minimization result quoted in the paper is incorrect for n≥3.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The ADD model with n extra compactified dimensions gives gravitational potential V(r) = -G m^2 R(n)^n / r^{n+1} for r << R(n).
This is the starting model, cited from Refs. [2-4]; the paper assumes this potential is valid down to the cutoff rc.
domain assumption The kinetic energy of the N-fermion system is that of an ideal ultrarelativistic Fermi gas, E_kin = (3/4)(3π^2)^{1/3} ∫ n^{4/3} d^3r.
Invoked in Section III for R << 1/m; the paper uses this form without checking that the variational solution satisfies this condition self-consistently.
ad hoc to paper At the cutoff distance rc, gravitational and electromagnetic interactions are comparable: G m^2 R(n)^n / r_c^{n+1} ~ α/r_c.
Eq. (14) is introduced as 'an approximate equality of different interactions at distance rc'. It is not derived and is the key input that yields N >~ 1/α^{3/2} ~ 1600.
ad hoc to paper The gravitational interaction dominates strong and electroweak interactions inside the small neutral systems.
Section III states this dominance without a quantitative comparison; used to justify neglecting other forces in the variational energy.

invented entities (1)

Gravitationally bound quark/neutrino/axion nuggets
purpose: Dark matter candidate
A composite of Standard Model particles, but its existence relies on the unproven cutoff assumption and a formation mechanism that is not demonstrated. No unique observable signature is derived, so there is no falsifiable handle outside the paper's own assumptions.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Microscopic composite systems bound by strong gravity in extra dimensions as candidates for dark matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GQQRULPC

@misc{pith2026250115476,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Microscopic composite systems bound by strong gravity in extra dimensions as candidates for dark matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GQQRULPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.15476}
}

read the original abstract

In the Arkani-Hamed-Dimopoulos-Dvali (ADD) model with n extra compactified dimensions, the gravitational potential scales as 1/r^{n+1} and becomes significantly stronger at short distances. We investigate the possibility of forming small-sized composite systems of Standard Model particles bound by this potential. Such bound states, composed of quarks, neutrinos, axions, or other particles, exhibit a small cross-section-to-mass ratio, making them viable candidates for dark matter.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 57 canonical work pages

[1]

Witten, Nuclear Physics B 443, 85 (1995)

E. Witten, Nuclear Physics B 443, 85 (1995)

work page 1995
[2]

Arkani–Hamed, S

N. Arkani–Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, Physics Letters B 429, 263–272 (1998)

work page 1998
[3]

Ignatios Antoniadis, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Di- mopoulos, Gia Dvali. Phys. Lett. B 436, 257 (1998)

work page 1998
[4]

Ignatios Antoniadis, Phys. Lett. B 246, 377 (1990)

work page 1990
[5]

Randall and R

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999)

1999
[6]

Randall and R

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690 (1999)

work page 1999
[7]

Tan, A.-B

W.-H. Tan, A.-B. Du, W.-C. Dong, S.-Q. Yang, C.-G. Shao, S.-G. Guan, Q.-L. Wang, B.-F. Zhan, P.-S. Luo, L.- C. Tu, and J. Luo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 051301 (2020)

work page 2020
[8]

J. G. Lee, E. G. Adelberger, T. S. Cook, S. M. Fleischer, and B. R. Heckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 101101 (2020)

work page 2020

Show all 63 references

[9]

D. J. Kapner, T. S. Cook, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gund- lach, B. R. Heckel, C. D. Hoyle, and H. E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 021101 (2007)

2007
[10]

E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel, S. Hoedl, C. D. Hoyle, D. J. Kapner, and A. Upadhye, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 131104 (2007)

2007
[11]

Y.-J. Chen, W. K. Tham, D. E. Krause, D. Lopez, E. Fis- chbach, and R. S. Decca, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221102 (2016)

2016
[12]

Vasilakis, J

G. Vasilakis, J. M. Brown, T. Kornack, and M. V. Ro- malis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 261801 (2009)

2009
[13]

W. A. Terrano, E. G. Adelberger, J. G. Lee, and B. R. Heckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 201801 (2015)

2015
[14]

Feng and L

L. Feng and L. Hong-Ya, Chinese Physics Letters 23, 2903 (2006)

2006
[15]

Luo and H

F. Luo and H. Liu, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 46, 606 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0602093

2007 arXiv
[16]

Dahia and A

F. Dahia and A. S. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D 94, 084033 (2016)

2016
[17]

Zhi-Gang, N

L. Zhi-Gang, N. Wei-Tou, and A. P. Pat´ on, Chinese Physics B 17, 70 (2008)

2008
[18]

Wang and W.-T

L.-B. Wang and W.-T. Ni, Modern Physics Letters A 28, 1350094 (2013)

2013
[19]

V. A. Dzuba, V. V. Flambaum, and P. Munro-Laylim, Phys. Rev. A 106, 052804 (2022)

2022
[20]

E. J. Salumbides, A. N. Schellekens, B. Gato-Rivera, and W. Ubachs, New Journal of Physics 17, 033015 (2015)

2015
[21]

Witten, Phys

E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 30, 272 (1984)

1984
[22]

Farhi and R

E. Farhi and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2379 (1984)

1984
[23]

De Rujula and S

A. De Rujula and S. L. Glashow, Nature 312, 734 (1984)

1984
[24]

D. M. Jacobs, G. D. Starkman, and B. W. Lynn, Month. Not. Royal Astronom. Soc. 450, 3418 (2015)

2015
[25]

D. M. Jacobs, A. Weltman, and G. D. Starkman, Phys. Rev. D 91, 115023 (2015)

2015
[26]

J. S. Sidhu, R. M. Abraham, C. Covault, and G. Stark- man, JCAP 2019 (02), 037

2019
[27]

J. S. Sidhu, G. Starkman, and R. Harvey, Phys. Rev. D 100, 103015 (2019)

2019
[28]

J. S. Sidhu, R. Scherrer, and G. Starkman, Phys. Lett. B 803, 135300 (2020)

2020
[29]

J. S. Sidhu and G. Starkman, Phys. Rev. D 100, 123008 (2019)

2019
[30]

J. S. Sidhu and G. D. Starkman, Phys. Rev. D 101, 083503 (2020)

2020
[31]

J. S. Sidhu, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043526 (2020)

2020
[32]

Cyncynates, J

D. Cyncynates, J. Chiel, J. Sidhu, and G. D. Starkman, Phys. Rev. D 95, 063006 (2017)

2017
[33]

Singh Sidhu, R

J. Singh Sidhu, R. J. Scherrer, and G. Starkman, Phys. Lett. B 807, 135574 (2020)

2020
[34]

Caloni, M

L. Caloni, M. Gerbino, and M. Lattanzi, JCAP 07, 027
[35]

V. V. Flambaum and I. B. Samsonov, Phys. Rev. D 104, 063042 (2021)

2021
[36]

V. V. Flambaum and I. B. Samsonov, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123011 (2022)

2022
[37]

V. V. Flambaum and I. B. Samsonov, Phys. Rev. D 106, 023006 (2022)

2022
[38]

V. V. Flambaum, I. B. Samsonov, and G. K. Vong, Phys. Rev. D 107, 123501 (2023)

2023
[39]

V. V. Flambaum, I. B. Samsonov, G. K. Vong, Phys. Rev. D 111, 023525, (2025). DOI: 10.1103/Phys- RevD.111.023525

2025 doi
[40]

Flambaum, Xunyu Liang, Ariel Zhitnitsky, Phys

Dmitry Budker, Victor V. Flambaum, Xunyu Liang, Ariel Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D 101, 043012 (2020). DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043012, arxiv:1909.09475

2020 arXiv
[41]

Budker, V

D. Budker, V. V. Flambaum, and A. Zhitnitsky, Symme- try 14, 459 (2022)

2022
[42]

M. M. Forbes and A. R. Zhitnitsky, JHEP 2001 (10), 013

2001
[43]

D. T. Son, M. A. Stephanov, and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3955 (2001)

2001
[44]

E. V. Shuryak and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. C 66, 034905 (2002)

2002
[45]

A. R. Zhitnitsky, JCAP 2003 (10), 010

2003
[46]

Zhitnitsky, Phys

A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D 74, 043515 (2006)

2006
[47]

D. H. Oaknin and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D71, 023519 (2005)

2005
[48]

M. M. Forbes and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D 78, 083505 (2008)

2008
[49]

Ruffini and S

R. Ruffini and S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev.187, 1767 (1969)

1969
[50]

V. V. Flambaum and I. B. Samsonov, Phys. Rev. D 110, 103016 (2024), arXiv:2407.21262 [hep-ph]

2024 arXiv
[51]

L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Statistical Physics, part 1 (Pergamon press, Oxford, 1980)

1980
[52]

R. L. Workman and Others (Particle Data Group), PTEP 2022, 083C01 (2022)

2022
[53]

J. Z. Mark Vogelsberger and A. Loeb, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 423, 3740 (2012)

2012
[54]

Musco and K

I. Musco and K. Jedamzik,Phys. Rev. D bf 103, 063538 6 (2021)

2021
[55]

Alcock and E

C. Alcock and E. Farhi, Phys. Rev. D 32, 1273 (1985)

1985
[56]

Madsen, H

J. Madsen, H. Heiselberg and K. Riisager, Phys. Rev. D 34, 2947 (1986)

1986
[57]

Madsen, Physics and astrophysics of strange quark matter, 1998 Preprint astro-ph/9809032

J. Madsen, Physics and astrophysics of strange quark matter, 1998 Preprint astro-ph/9809032

1998 arXiv
[58]

S. Ge, K. Lawson, and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. D 99, 116017 (2019)

2019
[59]

Zhitnitsky, Mod

A. Zhitnitsky, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 36, 2130017 (2021)

2021
[60]

Dhakal, S

P. Dhakal, S. Prohira, C. V. Cappiello, J. F. Beacom, S. Palo, and J. Marino, Phys. Rev. D 107, 043026 (2023)

2023
[61]

E. T. Herrin, D. C. Rosenbaum, and V. L. Teplitz, Phys. Rev. D 73, 043511 (2006)

2006
[62]

E E. T. Herrin and V. L. Teplitz, Phys. Rev. D 53, 6762 (1996)

1996
[63]

E D. P. Anderson, E. T. Herrin, V. L. Teplitz, and I. M. Tibuleac, Bull. Seismol. Soc. Am. 93, 2363 (2003)

2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Witten, Nuclear Physics B 443, 85 (1995)

E. Witten, Nuclear Physics B 443, 85 (1995)

work page 1995

[2] [2]

Arkani–Hamed, S

N. Arkani–Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, and G. Dvali, Physics Letters B 429, 263–272 (1998)

work page 1998

[3] [3]

Ignatios Antoniadis, Nima Arkani-Hamed, Savas Di- mopoulos, Gia Dvali. Phys. Lett. B 436, 257 (1998)

work page 1998

[4] [4]

Ignatios Antoniadis, Phys. Lett. B 246, 377 (1990)

work page 1990

[5] [5]

Randall and R

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3370 (1999)

1999

[6] [6]

Randall and R

L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690 (1999)

work page 1999

[7] [7]

Tan, A.-B

W.-H. Tan, A.-B. Du, W.-C. Dong, S.-Q. Yang, C.-G. Shao, S.-G. Guan, Q.-L. Wang, B.-F. Zhan, P.-S. Luo, L.- C. Tu, and J. Luo, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 051301 (2020)

work page 2020

[8] [8]

J. G. Lee, E. G. Adelberger, T. S. Cook, S. M. Fleischer, and B. R. Heckel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 101101 (2020)

work page 2020