Probing "Continuous Spin" QED with Rare Atomic Transitions

Aidan Reilly; Natalia Toro; Philip Schuster

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Probing "Continuous Spin" QED with Rare Atomic Transitions

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A photon with continuous spin would reopen 'forbidden' atomic transitions, and the hydrogen 2s lifetime already constrains the spin scale to roughly 0.1 eV.

desk verdict First real computation of bound-state CSP transitions; the central mechanism holds, but the abstract's 0.1 eV headline is off by ~3x and the nonrelativistic vertex has a fixable gap. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01500 v2 pith:7X7TU5M2 submitted 2025-05-02 hep-ph hep-thphysics.atom-ph

Aidan Reilly , Philip Schuster , Natalia Toro This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phhep-thphysics.atom-ph

keywords continuousspinparticleCasimiratomictransitionsforbiddenhydrogen2spathintegralboundstatesscalarQEDhelicitymodes

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 aims to show what would happen to atomic physics if the photon were a continuous-spin particle with a small but nonzero spin scale $\rho$. It derives a compact nonrelativistic formula for bound-state transition amplitudes mediated by such a photon, in which the final-state wavefunction is sampled at a shifted position and a helicity phase factor picks out the emitted mode. In ordinary QED, angular momentum selection rules forbid single-photon emission for many transitions; the paper shows that a nonzero $\rho$ opens these channels with rates suppressed by powers of $\rho v/\omega$. For scalar hydrogen, the $2s\to 1s$ transition becomes a single-photon decay whose rate would compete with the standard two-photon decay for $\rho$ near 0.1 eV, and the measured $2s$ lifetime therefore bounds $\rho$. The interest is that this turns precision atomic spectroscopy into a direct laboratory probe of a fundamental property of the photon.

What carries the argument

The engine is a path-integral treatment of the transition amplitude in which the photon interaction is inserted at one time, the binding potential is dropped over an infinitesimal time window around the insertion, and the remaining free path integral is evaluated in closed form using a Gaussian 'seed' operator. This yields the seed matrix element $M_{\rm seed} = C\int d^3x\, \psi_{\rm in}(x)\, \psi^*_{\rm out}(x - b/m)$, the central object of the paper. Ordinary QED is the term linear in $b$; the CSP generalization follows by substituting $b = (\rho/\omega)\eta$ and $C = iq_e\sqrt{2i\omega}/\rho$, then integrating $\eta$ over a unit circle with weight $e^{-ih\phi}$ to project onto helicity $h$. A Ward identity (the dangerous $1/\rho$ term being a total time derivative) removes the would-be divergent pieces, and an order-by-order symmetry analysis in Appendix D shows that no missing velocity corrections appear at the orders used.

What would settle it

Look for a monochromatic ~10.2 eV photon from the hydrogen $2s$ state. If the $2s$ lifetime is measured to match the two-photon QED prediction at the ~$10^{-3}$ level while no single-photon channel appears, the claim that $\rho\sim 0.1$ eV changes the lifetime is falsified; if the single-photon rate matches $\tau_{\rm CSP}\simeq(\omega^2/\rho^2)\,1.6\times10^{-4}$ s, the mechanism is confirmed.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The main result, stated as Eq. (1.3), is that in the non-relativistic limit a CSP photon of helicity $h$ mediates a bound-state transition with matrix element $M_h = (-q_e \sqrt{2\omega}/\rho) \int_0^{2\pi} d\phi\, e^{ih\phi} \int d^3x\, \psi_{\rm in}(x)\, \psi^*_{\rm out}(x - \rho\, e_\phi/(\omega m))$. In the $\rho\to 0$ limit, the Taylor expansion of the shifted final wavefunction reproduces the familiar QED amplitude; for $\rho\neq 0$, the shift moves the final wavefunction around a circle and, after the $e^{ih\phi}$ integral, opens channels with helicities other than the QED $\pm 1$ modes. For scalar hydrogen, this makes $2s\to 1s$ a single-photon decay with helicity $h=0$, amplitude suppressed by $\rho\alpha/\omega$ relative to the allowed $2p\to 1s$ dipole, and lifetime $\tau_{\rm CSP}\simeq(\omega^2/\rho^2)\,1.6\times10^{-4}$ s. Comparing with the known $0.12$ s two-photon lifetime gives the paper's bound $\rho\lesssim O(0.1\,{\rm eV})$.

Load-bearing premise

The rates and the bound rest on the paper's non-relativistic CSP interaction rule (Eq. 2.25) being complete at the order in $\rho$ used in each transition amplitude; a missed velocity-dependent term at that order would change the amplitudes and could remove the predicted $2s$ photon channel.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A photon with $\rho\neq 0$ lets atoms emit a single photon in transitions that QED forbids by angular momentum conservation; the amplitude carries a factor $(\rho v/\omega)^n$ whose power grows with how many units of angular momentum the photon must carry away.
The scalar-hydrogen $2s\to 1s$ transition gains a single-photon width with helicity $h=0$ and lifetime $\tau_{\rm CSP}\simeq(\omega^2/\rho^2)\,1.6\times10^{-4}$ s, so for $\rho\sim 0.1$ eV this channel competes with the known two-photon decay.
The measured $2s$ lifetime of $0.12$ s implies $\rho\lesssim O(0.1\,{\rm eV})$, and improving the lifetime measurement tightens the bound only as the square root of the relative precision.
For most high-multipole 'forbidden' transitions, the CSP amplitude is too small to beat standard QED higher-multipole backgrounds unless $\rho\gtrsim\omega$; the exceptional cases are states like $2s$ whose single-photon QED channel is absent entirely.
The path-integral method is not tied to hydrogen: it applies to any bound potential where the free propagator near the emission time is well behaved, so other long-lived metastable systems become candidates for the same search.

Reading between the lines

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

If the same shifted-overlap formula survives the spin-1/2 extension, metastable hydrogen-like and helium-like systems with no competing single-photon QED channel—hyperfine singlets, triplet helium, nuclear isomers—should be sensitive to $\rho$ values well below the hydrogen bound; the paper points at these targets but does not quantify them.
The scalar-matter approximation is a genuine gap: real electrons carry spin, and spin-flip (magnetic-type) CSP couplings could open the same channels at different powers of $\rho$, either strengthening or weakening the quoted bound. Until the spin-1/2 interaction is computed, the 0.1 eV number should be treated as a scalar-model constraint rather than a definitive limit on the photon.
The structure of Eq. (1.3) suggests a simple picture: CSP emission displaces the recoiling electron's wavefunction by a vector of length $\rho/(\omega m)$ whose direction rotates with the unobserved transverse polarization. This picture could be used to estimate CSP effects in other multipole-forbidden processes without repeating the path integral.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Two things to know up front. This is the first computation of bound-state atomic transitions mediated by a continuous-spin photon, and the paper's central mechanism — nonzero ρ opens single-photon channels that QED forbids, with rates suppressed by powers of ρv/ω — holds up. But the abstract oversells the flagship number: by the paper's own Eq. (4.16), the 2s lifetime is modified at O(1) for ρ around 0.3 eV, not 0.1 eV. The qualitative claim survives; the headline number is off by about a factor of three.

What is genuinely new is the path-integral treatment. Splitting the path integral around the vertex insertion, the seed-amplitude form M = C ∫ d³x ψ_in ψ*_out(x − b/m), and the helicity projection via the ϕ integral are clean and do real work. The checks are the right ones: the oscillator ℓ=1 amplitude reduces to the standard QED result as ρ→0, and the hydrogen ℓ=1 amplitude reproduces the E1 matrix element. The general pattern — helicity support set by Δm, suppression set by powers of ρv/ω — is coherent. No parameters are fitted; the constraints are predictions. The paper leans on the authors' own prior CSP vertex, but that is a parameter-free derivation used as an input, so there is no real circularity problem. No code ships, but the analytical detail is enough to re-derive the results.

Soft spots, in proportion. First, the nonrelativistic vertex reduction, Eq. (2.25), drops all velocity-dependent terms before any matrix element is computed. Appendix C kills the O(1/ρ) piece by a Ward identity, and Appendix D uses symmetry and parity to identify the first allowed order in ρ for each Δm, but neither evaluates the full vertex nor shows that velocity corrections at the same order in ρ vanish. The text concedes exactly this. If a ρ(v/ω) term with the right angular structure survives, the 2s amplitude and the derived bound shift. I see this as a real but addressable gap: the symmetry argument is plausible, the existence of the effect is not in doubt, only the coefficient of the 2s amplitude. Second, the numerical mismatch above — the abstract should quote the O(1) point at ρ ≈ 0.3 eV, or state the 0.1 eV number as the reach of a precision measurement. Easy fix. Third, the hydrogen calculation is scalar; real spin-1/2 electrons are not treated, which the paper states clearly. That makes the 0.1–0.3 eV bound an illustration, not yet a real hydrogen constraint. Fourth, CSP corrections to the binding potential and wavefunctions are asserted small on scaling grounds plus a regularized-Coulomb heuristic; reasonable for a first pass, but a complete treatment should check.

This is a method paper, and the method is the contribution. The audience is CSP phenomenologists and people working on precision atomic tests. It deserves a serious referee: send it out, ask the authors to close or clearly bound the vertex gap, fix the abstract number, and keep the spin-1/2 caveat prominent.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops a path-integral formalism for computing nonrelativistic bound-state transition amplitudes mediated by a continuous-spin photon with small spin scale ρ. The central result is Eq. (1.3): a matrix element in which the final-state wavefunction is displaced by ρ/(ωm) and projected onto helicity h. The authors apply this to a 3D harmonic oscillator and to a scalar hydrogen atom, showing that ρ≠0 opens single-photon channels that are forbidden in QED, with amplitudes suppressed by powers of ρα/ω. They focus on the 2s→1s transition in scalar hydrogen, compute an amplitude in Eq. (4.15), convert it to a lifetime in Eq. (4.16), and use the observed 0.12 s lifetime to infer ρ≲O(0.1 eV). The paper also asserts that the formalism reduces to standard QED as ρ→0.

Significance. If the central derivation is correct, this is an interesting and falsifiable proposal: precision atomic spectroscopy could probe the photon spin scale ρ through forbidden transitions, and the path-integral method is a useful technical contribution that connects the CSP worldline formalism to bound-state physics. The paper is parameter-free in the sense that ρ is not fitted to data, and it gives a concrete new channel for the 2s→1s transition in scalar hydrogen. The QHO examples reproduce the standard ℓ=1 result in the ρ→0 limit, which is a good check. However, the advertised numerical reach of the hydrogen constraint is not yet reliable because of internal inconsistencies among Eq. (4.15), Eq. (4.16), and the abstract, and because the nonrelativistic reduction of the CSP vertex is not fully justified at the order in ρ used.

major comments (3)

[§II.D, Eq. (2.25), Apps. C–D] The nonrelativistic CSP vertex is obtained by replacing k·z≈ωt and k·ż≈ω in the full off-shell vertex of Eq. (2.24), dropping all velocity-dependent corrections before computing any matrix element. The paper itself concedes in §II.D that a lowest-order-in-ρ term could carry a power of ż that was erroneously dropped. Appendix C only proves that the O(1/ρ) term vanishes as a total derivative, and Appendix D/Table II only constrains the order in ρ for a given Δm by symmetry; it does not establish that the surviving coefficient at that order has no additional powers of velocity. Since Eq. (1.3) and the hydrogen amplitude Eq. (4.15) inherit this truncated vertex, the normalization of the leading CSP amplitude, and hence the bound on ρ, is not yet demonstrated. The authors should either evaluate the full vertex to the required order or provide a proof that all velocity terms at the relevant order vanish.
[§IV.B–C, Eq. (4.15), Eq. (4.16), abstract] There is an internal inconsistency among the matrix element, the lifetime formula, and the headline claim. The text states that the 2s→1s CSP amplitude is suppressed relative to the 2p→1s amplitude by a factor of ρα/ω. Equation (4.15) as printed, Mseed = qe α (8/81)(ρ/(ωα)) = qe (8/81)(ρ/ω), has the α cancel and therefore gives (with Γ=ω/(2π)|M|²) a CSP width orders of magnitude larger than Eq. (4.16) implies. Equation (4.16), τCSP ≈ (ω²/ρ²)1.6×10⁻⁴ s, in turn places the O(1) change of the 2s lifetime at ρ≈0.3–0.4 eV, not at ρ≈0.1 eV as claimed in the abstract. The likely typo is that Eq. (4.15) should contain (ρα/ω) rather than (ρ/(ωα)), but as written the three statements—Eq. (4.15), Eq. (4.16), and the abstract—cannot all be correct. This must be fixed and the numerical value of the bound recomputed consistently.
[Abstract and §IV.C] The advertised laboratory bound is phrased as constraining the photon's spin scale from the hydrogen 2s lifetime, but the calculation in Section IV is performed only for a scalar hydrogen atom, with electron spin ignored. The paper explicitly notes that coupling CSP photons to spin-1/2 matter is left to future work, and that the scalar result cannot capture spin-flip channels. The unqualified use of 'hydrogen 2s state' in the abstract therefore overstates the result. Even the claim that conservative bounds can be set without magnetic-dipole interactions requires justification, because unmodeled spin-dependent CSP couplings could plausibly alter the rate in either direction. The headline should either be restricted to scalar hydrogen or supplemented with an argument that the scalar amplitude bounds the physical hydrogen rate.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (1.3)] The prefactor in Eq. (1.3) is printed as -qe√(2ω)/ρ, but the derivation in §II.D and Eq. (4.5) uses the dimensionless coefficient iqe√(2iω/ρ). The prefactor in Eq. (1.3) has the wrong dimension and should be corrected to √(2ω/ρ) (with the appropriate phase) so that the main-result formula matches the body of the paper.
[Appendix A] The justification for dropping the potential in the infinitesimal interval relies on a regularized Coulomb potential V(x)=-q1q2/(|x|+a0) and then states that a0 can be taken to zero with no issues. A short remark explaining that the ϵ→0 limit is taken before a0→0 near the singularity would make the argument more precise.
[Table I and §IV.C] The comparison between CSP and QED contributions in Table I would be more informative if the columns also specified the relevant power of α in the QED multipole rates, since the text's argument that only 2s→1s gives a useful bound depends on the relative α and ρ scaling.
[Throughout] There are several typographical issues, including 'roough' in the introduction and the inconsistent rendering of Eq. (4.15) with the surrounding sentence; a careful proofreading pass is needed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the CSP transition amplitudes are derived from an imported but parameter-free vertex, with the QED limit benchmarked against standard perturbation theory.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain runs from the prior CSP-matter vertex (Eqs. (2.23)-(2.25), from [13,14]) through a path-integral reduction that is checked against known QED perturbation theory (Eqs. (2.19)-(2.20), (3.12), and (4.10)), to the new matrix element (1.3) and the 2s->1s lifetime bound (4.15)-(4.16). No parameter is fitted to the transition rates being predicted: rho is a free parameter, and the bound rho<~0.1 eV is obtained by comparing the computed single-CSP width to the measured hydrogen 2s lifetime rather than being an input. The reliance on the authors' own [13,14] is load-bearing but not circular under the stated rules, because those works give a parameter-free spin-0 CSP vertex that is not identical to the atomic-transition result derived here, and the current paper independently recovers standard QED amplitudes as its rho->0 limit. The paper itself flags the one genuine weakness in Sec. II D: 'It is still possible that the lowest order in rho vertex term will come with a non-zero power of z_dot that we may have erroneously dropped.' That is an unverified assumption about velocity corrections, and Appendix D supplies only a partial symmetry argument (Table II) rather than a complete evaluation of the full vertex; likewise, the scalar-electron idealization and the neglect of CSP corrections to binding potentials are acknowledged simplifications (Secs. IV-V). These are correctness risks, not circularity, because they do not make the predicted amplitude equal to an input by construction. The additional numerical mismatch between the abstract's 'rho~0.1 eV' and the O(1) point implied by Eq. (4.16) with tau=0.12 s is an internal inconsistency, not a circular step. Accordingly, no specific circular step can be exhibited, and the circularity score is 0.

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

The central claim rests on the prior CSP-matter coupling, on the nonrelativistic reduction of that coupling, and on neglecting CSP corrections to the binding potential. ρ is an input parameter, not fitted, so no free parameters are counted. No new entities are introduced by this paper; the CSP photon is inherited from earlier work.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The CSP-matter interaction vertex from Schuster-Toro-Zhou (2023) and Schuster-Toro (2024), quoted in Eqs. (2.23) to (2.25), is the correct on-shell coupling of a continuous-spin photon to scalar matter.
The paper imports this vertex rather than deriving it; all subsequent amplitudes depend on it.
domain assumption For the transitions considered, terms dropped in the nonrelativistic expansion of the CSP vertex, including k·x phases, higher powers of velocity, and O(1/ρ) pieces, do not contribute at the leading order in ρ.
Appendices C and D give Ward-identity and angular/parity arguments, not a full vertex computation; this is load-bearing for the scaling.
domain assumption CSP corrections to the binding potential and wavefunctions can be neglected for the rare transitions analyzed.
Asserted in Sec. II with a heuristic short-time argument; Appendix A uses a regularized Coulomb potential.
domain assumption A scalar hydrogen model without electron spin is representative for the 2s lifetime estimate.
The paper explicitly defers spin-1/2 CSP coupling to future work; real hydrogen includes spin-dependent channels.
standard math Standard path-integral equivalences and the Veltman prescription delta(0)=0 used in Appendix B.
Conventional techniques from the cited literature, not re-proven.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing "Continuous Spin" QED with Rare Atomic Transitions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7X7TU5M2

@misc{pith2026250501500,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing "Continuous Spin" QED with Rare Atomic Transitions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7X7TU5M2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01500}
}

abstract

An intriguing and elementary possibility is that familiar massless particles like the photon could be "continuous spin" particles (CSP) with a small but non-zero spin Casimir $\rho$. In this case, the familiar two polarization states of the photon are accompanied by an infinite tower of integer spaced helicity modes, with couplings dictated entirely by Lorentz symmetry and the parameter $\rho$. We present a formalism for computing bound state atomic transitions for scalar QED when $\rho \neq 0$, employing path integral methods not often used for bound state computations, but that readily generalize to the CSP case. We compute several illustrative amplitudes and show that $\rho\neq 0$ opens new decay channels for atomic transitions with rates controlled by $\rho\alpha/\omega$ for transition frequency $\omega$. These new channels can appreciably modify the rates of "forbidden" transitions. For example, the lifetime of the hydrogen $2s$ state would be affected at $O(1)$ for $\rho\sim 0.1$ eV, suggesting new directions for fundamental tests of QED in laboratory experiments.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

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

Hydrogen 21 cm Constraints on the Photon's Spin Scale
hep-ph 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

A continuous-spin photon would suppress the hydrogen 21cm transition rate by 1 minus rho squared alpha squared over 6 omega squared, which turns existing in-beam hyperfine data into the bound rho below 1 meV.
Interactions of a Continuous-Spin Field with a Spin-1/2 Particle
hep-th 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Constructs worldline currents coupling continuous-spin fields to spin-1/2 matter with smooth QED and Yukawa limits as the spin Casimir vanishes.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

[1]

Extracting the QED Result 17

work page
[2]

continuous spin

Extracting the CSP Result 17 B. A ∆ℓ = 0 Transition 18 IV. Scalar Hydrogen Atom 20 A. (n,ℓ,m ) : (ℓ + 1,ℓ,ℓ )→ (1, 0, 0) Transitions, Order by Order 21 B. 2s→ 1s Transition 23 C. Interpreting constraints on ρ 24 V. Discussion and Outlook 25 A. Dropping the Potential Term in the Path Integral 26 B. Solving the Free Path Integral 27 C. Ward Identity for Bou...

work page
[3]

(3.10) that the only transition with a non-zero piece linear in ⃗b comes from ℓ = 1

Extracting the QED Result We can now notice from the form of Eq. (3.10) that the only transition with a non-zero piece linear in ⃗b comes from ℓ = 1. Each piece of the polarization vector will therefore yield a component (when settingC =qe, and linearizing in ⃗b =⃗ εx,y): Mx,y(ϕb) =eiϕbqe 1 2ν3/2m ˜N00 ˜N01 π3/2. (3.11) Finally, by setting ϕb = 0 for Mx, ...

work page
[4]

forbidden

Extracting the CSP Result To get the CSP result is actually somewhat simpler, as we can simply insert the proper definitions of⃗b = (ρ/ω)⃗ ηand C = (iqe)( √ 2iω/ρ) to get: M(ϕη) = (iqe)( √ 2iω/ρ) ˜N00 ˜N0ℓ π3/2 eiℓϕηe− νρ2 4ω2m2 (ρ/ω)ℓ 2ℓν3/2mℓ , (3.13) 18 where we have used the fact that |⃗ η| = 1. From this expression we can immediately see both the hel...

work page
[5]

Weinberg and E

S. Weinberg and E. Witten, Limits on Massless Particles, Phys. Lett. B 96, 59 (1980)

1980
[6]

E. P. Wigner, On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogeneous Lorentz Group, Annals of Mathematics 40, 149 (1939)

work page 1939
[7]

Weinberg, Feynman rules for any spin

S. Weinberg, Feynman rules for any spin. ii. massless particles, Phys. Rev. 134, B882 (1964)

work page 1964
[8]

Weinberg, Photons and gravitons in s-matrix theory: Derivation of charge conservation and equality of gravitational and inertial mass, Phys

S. Weinberg, Photons and gravitons in s-matrix theory: Derivation of charge conservation and equality of gravitational and inertial mass, Phys. Rev. 135, B1049 (1964)

work page 1964

Show all 29 references

[9]

Weinberg, Photons and gravitons in perturbation theory: Derivation of maxwell’s and einstein’s equations, Phys

S. Weinberg, Photons and gravitons in perturbation theory: Derivation of maxwell’s and einstein’s equations, Phys. Rev. 138, B988 (1965)

1965
[10]

Schuster and N

P. Schuster and N. Toro, Continuous-spin particle field theory with helicity correspondence, Phys. Rev. D 91, 025023 (2015), arXiv:1404.0675 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[11]

F. A. Berends, G. J. H. Burgers, and H. van Dam, On the Theoretical Problems in Constructing Interactions Involving Higher Spin Massless Particles, Nucl. Phys. B 260, 295 (1985)

1985
[12]

F. A. Berends, G. J. H. Burgers, and H. Van Dam, On Spin Three Self Interactions, Z. Phys. C 24, 247 (1984)

1984
[13]

Bekaert, N

X. Bekaert, N. Boulanger, and S. Leclercq, Strong obstruction of the Berends-Burgers-van Dam spin-3 vertex, J. Phys. A 43, 185401 (2010), arXiv:1002.0289 [hep-th]

2010 arXiv
[14]

Schuster and N

P. Schuster and N. Toro, On the Theory of Continuous-Spin Particles: Wavefunctions and Soft-Factor Scattering Amplitudes, JHEP 09, 104, arXiv:1302.1198 [hep-th]

arXiv
[15]

Reilly, A

A. Reilly, A. Russo, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Hydrogen 21 cm Constraints on the Photon’s Spin Scale (2025), arXiv:2505.15890 [hep-ph]. 35

2025 arXiv
[16]

Schuster and N

P. Schuster and N. Toro, On the Theory of Continuous-Spin Particles: Helicity Correspondence in Radiation and Forces, JHEP 09, 105, arXiv:1302.1577 [hep-th]

arXiv
[17]

Schuster, G

P. Schuster, G. Sundaresan, and N. Toro, Thermodynamics of continuous spin photons, Phys. Rev. D 111, 056019 (2025), arXiv:2406.14616 [hep-ph]

2025 arXiv
[18]

Schuster, N

P. Schuster, N. Toro, and K. Zhou, Interactions of Particles with ”Continuous Spin” Fields, JHEP 04, 010, arXiv:2303.04816 [hep-th]

arXiv
[19]

Schuster and N

P. Schuster and N. Toro, Quantum electrodynamics mediated by a photon with continuous spin, Phys. Rev. D 109, 096008 (2024), arXiv:2308.16218 [hep-th]

2024 arXiv
[20]

Sakurai, Advanced Quantum Mechanics , Always learning (Pearson Education, Incorporated, 1967)

J. Sakurai, Advanced Quantum Mechanics , Always learning (Pearson Education, Incorporated, 1967)

1967
[21]

Kleinert, Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics, Polymer Physics, and Financial Markets (World Scientific Publishing Company, 2004)

H. Kleinert, Path Integrals in Quantum Mechanics, Statistics, Polymer Physics, and Financial Markets (World Scientific Publishing Company, 2004)

2004
[22]

R. P. Feynman and A. R. Hibbs, Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals (New York: McGraw Hill, 1965)

1965
[23]

Other possible detection schemes include the use of nuclear decay and subsequent gamma cascades with missing energy, such as the experiment proposed in [24]

and [15], respectively. Other possible detection schemes include the use of nuclear decay and subsequent gamma cascades with missing energy, such as the experiment proposed in [24]. The energy of emitted photons in these decays are typically much larger than those of low lying...
[24]

Corradini, C

O. Corradini, C. Schubert, J. P. Edwards, and N. Ahmadiniaz, Spinning Particles in Quantum Mechanics and Quantum Field Theory (2015) arXiv:1512.08694 [hep-th]

2015 arXiv
[25]

M. J. Strassler, Field theory without Feynman diagrams: One loop effective actions, Nucl. Phys. B 385, 145 (1992), arXiv:hep-ph/9205205

1992 arXiv
[26]

Sucher, Magnetic Dipole Transitions in Atomic and Particle Physics, Rept

J. Sucher, Magnetic Dipole Transitions in Atomic and Particle Physics, Rept. Prog. Phys. 41, 1781 (1978)

1978
[27]

W. R. Johnson, Radiative Decay Rates of Metastable One-Electron Atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 1123 (1972)

1972
[28]

Kundu, A

S. Kundu, A. Russo, P. Schuster, and N. Toro, Interactions of a Continuous-Spin Field with a Spin-1/2 Particle (2025), arXiv:2505.14770 [hep-th]

2025 arXiv
[29]

Benato, A

G. Benato, A. Drobizhev, S. Rajendran, and H. Ramani, Invisible decay modes in nuclear gamma cascades, Phys. Rev. D 99, 035025 (2019), arXiv:1810.06467 [hep-ph]

2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Extracting the QED Result 17

work page

[2] [2]

continuous spin

Extracting the CSP Result 17 B. A ∆ℓ = 0 Transition 18 IV. Scalar Hydrogen Atom 20 A. (n,ℓ,m ) : (ℓ + 1,ℓ,ℓ )→ (1, 0, 0) Transitions, Order by Order 21 B. 2s→ 1s Transition 23 C. Interpreting constraints on ρ 24 V. Discussion and Outlook 25 A. Dropping the Potential Term in the Path Integral 26 B. Solving the Free Path Integral 27 C. Ward Identity for Bou...

work page

[3] [3]

(3.10) that the only transition with a non-zero piece linear in ⃗b comes from ℓ = 1

Extracting the QED Result We can now notice from the form of Eq. (3.10) that the only transition with a non-zero piece linear in ⃗b comes from ℓ = 1. Each piece of the polarization vector will therefore yield a component (when settingC =qe, and linearizing in ⃗b =⃗ εx,y): Mx,y(ϕb) =eiϕbqe 1 2ν3/2m ˜N00 ˜N01 π3/2. (3.11) Finally, by setting ϕb = 0 for Mx, ...

work page

[4] [4]

forbidden

Extracting the CSP Result To get the CSP result is actually somewhat simpler, as we can simply insert the proper definitions of⃗b = (ρ/ω)⃗ ηand C = (iqe)( √ 2iω/ρ) to get: M(ϕη) = (iqe)( √ 2iω/ρ) ˜N00 ˜N0ℓ π3/2 eiℓϕηe− νρ2 4ω2m2 (ρ/ω)ℓ 2ℓν3/2mℓ , (3.13) 18 where we have used the fact that |⃗ η| = 1. From this expression we can immediately see both the hel...

work page

[5] [5]

Weinberg and E

S. Weinberg and E. Witten, Limits on Massless Particles, Phys. Lett. B 96, 59 (1980)

1980

[6] [6]

E. P. Wigner, On Unitary Representations of the Inhomogeneous Lorentz Group, Annals of Mathematics 40, 149 (1939)

work page 1939

[7] [7]

Weinberg, Feynman rules for any spin

S. Weinberg, Feynman rules for any spin. ii. massless particles, Phys. Rev. 134, B882 (1964)

work page 1964

[8] [8]

Weinberg, Photons and gravitons in s-matrix theory: Derivation of charge conservation and equality of gravitational and inertial mass, Phys

S. Weinberg, Photons and gravitons in s-matrix theory: Derivation of charge conservation and equality of gravitational and inertial mass, Phys. Rev. 135, B1049 (1964)

work page 1964