Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Searching for Axion Dark Matter Near Relaxing Magnetars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The plasma filling a magnetar's magnetosphere, not just its magnetic field, sets the frequency and brightness of the axion-conversion line, and the two leading plasma models place that line in entirely different observable bands.

desk verdict Careful synthesis of realistic magnetar plasma models with axion conversion gives genuinely new projections, but the BT07 branch's headline SKA sensitivity rests on a parameter set the paper's own X-ray fit does not support. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.20450 v1 pith:GCOH4YCG submitted 2025-05-26 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

Sandip Roy , Anirudh Prabhu , Christopher Thompson , Samuel J. Witte , Carlos Blanco , Jonathan Zhang This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE PACS 95.35.+d14.80.Va97.60.Gb
keywords axiondarkmattermagnetarsresonantaxion–photonconversioneffectiveplasmafrequencyPSRJ1745–2900collisionalpairALMAandSKAsensitivityQCD
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

Axion dark matter falling onto a magnetar can resonantly convert into photons where the axion mass matches the local effective plasma frequency, producing a narrow spectral line. Earlier work assumed the minimal Goldreich–Julian charge density; this paper instead builds the full charge and current distributions predicted by the two leading models of magnetar electrodynamics, the relativistic double layer and the collisional trans-relativistic plasma, and recomputes the emitted line with ray tracing. The central result is that the two models put the line at completely different frequencies and luminosities, so the plasma model is the dominant systematic uncertainty for magnetar-based axion searches. If the collisional model holds, ALMA observations of the Galactic Center magnetar PSR J1745–2900 could reach axion–photon couplings near $2 \times 10^{-12}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$ for meV-scale axions; if the double-layer model holds, SKA2 could reach QCD axion masses around $2\times10^{-5}$ to $8\times10^{-5}$ eV. The paper also lists observational signatures, such as the shape of the 1 MeV spectrum and hotspot–spindown correlations, that could determine which plasma state a given magnetar actually has.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective plasma frequency, $\omega_{p,\mathrm{eff}}^2 = \sum_s \langle \omega_{p,s}^2/\gamma_s^3\rangle$, the density-weighted, relativistic-boost-corrected sum of the electron and positron plasma frequencies, because the resonance condition $m_a \simeq \omega_{p,\mathrm{eff}}$ fixes where in the magnetosphere and at what photon frequency axion dark matter converts. The argument is carried by two global models of the magnetar circuit: the BT07 model, in which a relativistic double layer in a narrow polar j-bundle carries the current while the rest of the magnetosphere relaxes near the Goldreich–Julian density, and the TK20 model, in which collisional trans-relativistic pair plasma in crustal arcades emits annihilation photons that non-locally create a dense pair halo throughout the magnetosphere. X-ray and spindown data for PSR J1745–2900 fix the twist $\psi\simeq1.6$, the bundle opening angle $\theta_c\simeq0.01$, and the arcade luminosity $L_0=10^{35}$ erg/s, and a kinetic-theory ray-tracing code converts the resulting plasma profiles into escaped differential power and line width.

What would settle it

A decisive observation is the 0.5–1 MeV spectrum of PSR J1745–2900: the TK20 collisional model predicts a hyper-exponential cutoff above roughly 1 MeV, whereas the BT07 double-layer model predicts hard photons extending well above 1 MeV, so the measured spectrum selects which plasma model, and hence which axion mass and coupling projection, applies. If the surviving model's predicted narrow line is then not seen at its resonant frequency with the projected ten-hour sensitivity, that model's conversion efficiency is ruled out.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the resonant axion-to-photon conversion signal from a magnetar is governed by the full phase-space distribution of the electron–positron plasma, encoded in the effective plasma frequency $\omega_{p,\mathrm{eff}}^2 = \sum_s \langle \omega_{p,s}^2/\gamma_s^3\rangle$, and that this quantity differs enormously between the two viable models of quiescent magnetar magnetospheres. In the BT07 double-layer picture, current is confined to a narrow polar j-bundle and most of the magnetosphere relaxes near the Goldreich–Julian density, so resonant conversion stays at low frequencies and SKA2-class telescopes could probe QCD axion masses near $2\times 10^{-5}$ to $8\times 10^{-5}$ eV. In the TK20 collisional picture, arcade currents bathe the whole magnetosphere with 0.5–1 MeV photons whose pair creation suspends a dense trans-relativistic halo, pushing the conversion surface to meV-scale frequencies where ALMA could reach $g_{a\gamma\gamma} \sim 2\times10^{-12}\,\mathrm{GeV}^{-1}$. The authors conclude that the two models yield vastly different predictions for the frequency and amplitude of the line, that neither model uniquely describes all sources, and that discriminating the plasma state observationally is a prerequisite for using magnetars as axion telescopes.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one of the two plasma structures, the polar double-layer current bundle or the collisional arcade with its pair halo, actually matches the real charge and current distribution around PSR J1745–2900, with the twist, opening angle, and luminosity taken from X-ray and spindown data, so that if the real magnetosphere is hybrid, turbulent, or differently loaded, the predicted sensitivities shift by orders of magnitude.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Ten-hour ALMA observations of PSR J1745–2900 could reach $g_{a\gamma\gamma}\sim 2\times 10^{-12}$ GeV$^{-1}$ for axion masses near $10^{-4}$–$10^{-3}$ eV if the TK20 collisional state describes the magnetosphere.
  • SKA2 observations in the BT07/Goldreich–Julian regime could reach QCD axion masses near $2\times 10^{-5}$–$8\times 10^{-5}$ eV, matching earlier minimal-density projections.
  • The plasma state decides the accessible axion mass: collisional arcades push sensitivity to meV-scale axions, while a relaxed double-layer magnetosphere keeps it in the $\mu$eV range.
  • Sensitivity evolves with the magnetar's state: a freshly twisted, dense magnetosphere favors heavier axions, and an untwisting quiescent one shifts the search window to lighter axions.
  • Observational diagnostics, such as the shape of the ~1 MeV spectrum, hotspot–spindown correlations, and cyclotron absorption features, can identify which plasma model applies and are prerequisites for a reliable axion interpretation.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial extension: a hybrid magnetosphere that hosts an arcade on one side and a relaxed polar bundle on the other would put both the meV and $\mu$eV windows within reach of a single target; the paper flags this possibility but does not model it.
  • Editorial extension: the dark-matter halo uncertainty near Sagittarius A* is comparable in size to the plasma-model uncertainty, since cored profiles weaken the projected couplings by $10^2$–$10^{2.5}$ and a density spike strengthens them by a similar factor, so better inner-halo constraints are as valuable as better magnetosphere modeling.
  • Editorial extension: the same plasma-model sensitivity applies to any resonance-based probe of neutron-star magnetospheres, not just axion searches, so the systematic uncertainty quantified here has a wider reach than the axion program alone.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper computes resonant axion-to-photon conversion signals from the magnetar PSR J1745–2900 using two non-Goldreich-Julian magnetosphere models: the BT07 relativistic double-layer j-bundle and the TK20 collisional trans-relativistic arcade. The authors construct self-consistent charge and current distributions for each model, implement them in a 3D ray-tracing framework based on prior axion-mixing codes, and derive projected sensitivities for GBT, ALMA, SKA1, and SKA2. The central qualitative claim is that the choice of magnetospheric plasma model changes both the frequency and the amplitude of the predicted axion line by orders of magnitude, and that magnetar observations could probe meV-scale axions (TK20) or QCD-scale axions in a GJ-like limit (BT07), depending on the correct plasma physics. The paper also proposes observational diagnostics to distinguish the two plasma models and includes appendices addressing Euler-Heisenberg corrections, the one-dimensional approximation, telescope parameters, and turbulent magnetic-field effects.

Significance. If the modeling is accepted, this is a substantial step beyond earlier axion-magnetar studies that assumed the minimal Goldreich-Julian charge density. The paper demonstrates carefully and quantitatively that the plasma structure—not just the magnetic field—controls the resonant conversion surface, and that the two leading magnetar plasma models produce qualitatively different spectral lines. The ray-tracing machinery, the inclusion of relativistic streaming distributions, the validation against a 1D approximation in Appendix D, and the explicit treatment of strong-field QED corrections in Appendix A are genuine strengths. The projected reach—ALMA to gaγγ ∼ 2×10^-12 GeV^-1 for meV axions under the TK20 model, and SKA2 to QCD axion masses around 2×10^-5 to 8×10^-5 eV under the BT07/GJ-like model—would be scientifically important if realized. However, because these projections inherit order-of-magnitude uncertainties from both the unvalidated plasma model and the Galactic Center dark matter density profile, the paper's lasting value is more likely the framework and the demonstration of model sensitivity than any single projected exclusion curve.

major comments (3)
  1. The quiescent BT07 parameters adopted in Sec. VII A are not internally consistent with the X-ray/spindown fit presented in Sec. V A 1. Equation (50) with R_BB ≈ 0.1 km and L_X ≈ 1.15×10^32 erg/s yields ψΦ9 ≈ 300; combined with the voltage bound eΦ < 0.8 GeV stated immediately above Eq. (50), this requires ψ ≳ 375 rad. The authors themselves note in Sec. V A 1 that such a twist is inconsistent with the observed near-constant spindown and with kink stability. Adopting ψ ≈ 1.6 rad in Sec. VII A therefore corresponds to an earlier post-outburst epoch, not to a self-consistent solution of Eqs. (50), (51), and the voltage bound together. As a result, the lower-right panel of Fig. 7 and the associated SKA2/QCD-axion projection should not be presented as the BT07 model's prediction for quiescent PSR J1745–2900 unless the parameters are re-fit self-consistently or the curve is explicitly relabeled as a GJ-like benchmark. This issue does not overturn the paper's central qualitative claim that the plasma model changes the line properties, but it does undermine one of the two headline quantitative projections.
  2. The absolute coupling sensitivities quoted in the abstract and conclusions are conditional on a Galactic Center dark matter density that is uncertain by 2–2.5 orders of magnitude. As stated in Sec. VII C, switching from the adopted generalized NFW profile to an Einasto or cored Burkert profile reduces the local density by factors of 10^4–10^5 and weakens the coupling sensitivities by factors of 10^2–10^2.5, while a dark-matter spike would improve them by about two orders of magnitude. This means that headline numbers such as gaγγ ≈ 2×10^-12 GeV^-1 (TK20) and the SKA2 QCD-axion mass range are not robust predictions for PSR J1745–2900. The sensitivity curves should be presented as bands spanning the plausible DM profile range, or the single-curve projections should be explicitly labeled as benchmark values for one assumed halo profile. As written, a reader could easily over-interpret the curves in Figs. 7–9 as quantitative exclusions or discovery reaches rather than as model-dependent projections.
  3. The TK20 branch of the projections depends on the annihilation-bremsstrahlung luminosity L0, which is not measured for PSR J1745–2900. The fiducial value L0 = 10^35 erg/s is adopted in Sec. VII A, and the conclusion highlights the 2×10^-12 GeV^-1 reach obtained for L0 = 10^34 erg/s in Fig. 9. The paper correctly notes in Sec. VII D that MeV spectral measurements are needed to calibrate L0, but the abstract and conclusion do not carry this caveat. Since the TK20 sensitivity curve shifts by orders of magnitude in both coupling and mass range as L0 is varied (Fig. 9), the meV-scale ALMA projection should be explicitly framed as conditional on an unconstrained luminosity, not as a prediction for PSR J1745–2900.
minor comments (5)
  1. The model parameters list includes a misalignment angle, but no value is specified anywhere in the text; the figures appear to assume aligned magnetic and rotational axes. Please state the assumed value or explain why the alignment does not affect the azimuthally averaged sensitivity.
  2. The text says strong-field Euler–Heisenberg corrections are neglected, but Appendix A demonstrates that they are small for the fields considered. Please add a cross-reference to Appendix A at that point so readers know the validity regime has been checked.
  3. The notation ωp,eff is used both for the distribution-weighted plasma frequency in Eq. (58) and as an ingredient in the quadrature sum in Eq. (66); consider renaming one of the two quantities to avoid confusion.
  4. The caption states that the best sensitivity of ALMA and GBT is adopted for each value of ma, but it does not explain how telescope frequency coverage is mapped to axion mass for each panel; a brief sentence would help.
  5. There is a typo in the second bullet: 'Since the the magnetospheric plasma state evolves' should read 'Since the magnetospheric plasma state evolves.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: plasma inputs are fixed by magnetar observations and prior independently validated plasma/QED calculations, not by the axion signal; the BT07 parameter inconsistency is a modeling caveat, not a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the axion prediction. The magnetospheric plasma distributions (BT07 and TK20) are constructed from prior magnetar electrodynamics models and are fixed by X-ray luminosity/hot-spot fits, spindown, and QED pair-creation calculations (Secs. III-V). The axion-to-photon conversion probability in Eq. (62) and the ray-tracing procedure are taken from prior work [28,31,38], but the text cites independent kinetic-theory [10], wave-optics [12], and numerical [11] cross-checks, so these self-citations are not load-bearing in a circular sense. The sensitivity curves in Sec. VII are obtained by evaluating Eq. (62) on resonance surfaces and comparing with telescope SEFDs; no axion-line parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction. The main caveat is not circularity: the BT07 quiescent parameters (theta_c = 0.01, psi = 1.6) used for the SKA2 curve sit in tension with the paper's own X-ray fit (psi*Phi_9 ~ 300), the voltage bound e*Phi < 0.8 GeV, observed spindown constancy, and kink stability (Sec. V A 1). This is an internal-consistency/validity concern for one projected branch, but the axion signal still follows from the stated plasma model rather than from the target observable.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The calculation leans on established axion-photon conversion physics and on two prior magnetar magnetosphere models. The genuinely new inputs are the model-specific plasma distributions, the fit of j-bundle parameters to PSR J1745-2900 X-ray data, and the ray-traced telescope projections. The main free parameters are the twist, voltage, opening angle, arcade luminosity, dark matter density normalization, and the fitted LX-RBB power law. No new particles or new entities are introduced.

free parameters (7)
  • j-bundle twist angle psi = 1.6 rad, with psi Phi_9 near 300 inferred at quiescence
    Inferred from X-ray hot spot and spindown evolution of PSR J1745-2900 in Sec V A 1; controls j-bundle plasma density in the BT07 model through Eq. (27).
  • longitudinal voltage Phi = e Phi less than about 0.8 GeV, with psi Phi_9 ~ 12 early and ~ 300 at quiescence
    Regulates pair multiplicity and density (Eq. 20); the product psi Phi_9 is fitted to the LX and RBB evolution.
  • j-bundle opening angle theta_c = 0.01 rad, with 0.1 and 0.2 also explored
    Set by the inferred hot spot radius RBB ~ 0.1 km for quiescent PSR J1745-2900; strongly affects conversion surface topology (Sec VII A, Fig. 8).
  • TK20 arcade annihilation bremsstrahlung luminosity L0 = 10^35 erg/s fiducial; 10^34 and 10^34.5 erg/s varied
    Not measured; sets the halo pair density and plasma frequency (Eqs. 39 and 45, Sec IV E). Sensitivity depends on it (Fig. 9).
  • Galactic Center dark matter density normalization and velocity dispersion = Generalized NFW at 0.097 pc with 220 km/s dispersion
    Assumed from fitted halo models; alternative profiles change density by 1e4 to 1e5 and coupling sensitivities by 1e2 to 1e2.5 (Sec VII C).
  • power-law index alpha for psi Phi_9 vs RBB = alpha ~ 1.42
    Fit to LX versus RBB data in Sec V A 1, Eq. (53); used to extrapolate twist and voltage into the present quiescent state.
  • pair multiplicity M = 15 in TK20; around 100 Phi_9 in BT07
    Taken from prior work; sets n_plus-minus = M n_min in Eqs. (37) and (21), determining plasma density along field lines.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math Force-free electrodynamics with j parallel to B and quasi-static magnetosphere
    Used throughout Secs II-IV to relate current density to magnetic twist and to justify the circuit equations.
  • standard math Resonant axion-photon mixing formalism with WKB conversion probability
    Relies on prior kinetic theory and ray tracing (Eqs. 54-62); assumed valid when plasma varies slowly compared to the axion wavelength.
  • domain assumption Magnetar magnetospheres are described by the BT07 or TK20 plasma model
    Central structural assumption distinguishing the two frameworks; both are prior astrophysical models but their applicability to PSR J1745-2900 is not established (Secs III, IV, and VII).
  • domain assumption Ground-state Landau confinement with one-dimensional flow along magnetic field lines
    Used to reduce the plasma distribution to parallel momentum space and to define omega_p,eff in Sec VI; valid for B much larger than B_Q but approximate.
  • domain assumption Isotropic, homogeneous asymptotic axion phase space with generalized NFW density at 0.097 pc
    Specified in Sec VI C and VII C; the authors note that alternative halo profiles change sensitivities by orders of magnitude.
  • ad hoc to paper The BT07 j-bundle fit requires psi Phi_9 ~ 300 in quiescence and a power-law LX-RBB relation
    Needed to set theta_c = 0.01 and psi = 1.6 in Sec VII A; the authors flag tension with observed constant spindown and kink stability (Sec V A 1).
  • ad hoc to paper TK20 arcade luminosity L0 = 10^35 erg/s
    Adopted as fiducial in Sec VII A because MeV data are absent; varied only within a narrow range in Fig. 9.
  • ad hoc to paper Conversion photons crossing high-density plasma walls are excised
    Adopted to avoid overstating sensitivity in the global twist model with large opening angle (Sec VII D).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Searching for Axion Dark Matter Near Relaxing Magnetars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GCOH4YCG

@misc{pith2026250520450,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Searching for Axion Dark Matter Near Relaxing Magnetars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GCOH4YCG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.20450}
}
read the original abstract

Axion dark matter passing through the magnetospheres of magnetars can undergo hyper-efficient resonant mixing with low-energy photons, leading to the production of narrow spectral lines that could be detectable on Earth. Since this is a resonant process triggered by the spatial variation in the photon dispersion relation, the luminosity and spectral properties of the emission are highly sensitive to the charge and current densities permeating the magnetosphere. To date, a majority of the studies investigating this phenomenon have assumed a perfectly dipolar magnetic field structure with a near-field plasma distribution fixed to the minimal charge-separated force-free configuration. While this {may} be a reasonable treatment for the closed field lines of conventional radio pulsars, the strong magnetic fields around magnetars are believed to host processes that drive strong deviations from this minimal configuration. In this work, we study how realistic magnetar magnetospheres impact the electromagnetic emission produced from axion dark matter. Specifically, we construct charge and current distributions that are consistent with magnetar observations, and use these to recompute the prospective sensitivity of radio and sub-mm telescopes to axion dark matter. We demonstrate that the two leading models yield vastly different predictions for the frequency and amplitude of the spectral line, indicating systematic uncertainties in the plasma structure are significant. Finally, we discuss various observational signatures that can be used to differentiate the local plasma loading mechanism of an individual magnetar, which will be necessary if there is hope of using such objects to search for axions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.20450 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagrams illustrating the two models under consideration. Left panel: Relativistic Double Layer (“BT07”) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Effective plasma frequency ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Effective plasma frequency ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Fits and extrapolation of X-ray observations of GC magnetar PSR J1745–2900. Left panel: fit of X-ray luminosity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Interpolated ray-traced sensitivities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Ray-traced resonant conversion surface for the quarter, half, and slice arcade geometries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Mollweide projections [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p035_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Telescope system equivalent flux densities (SEFDs) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p037_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

  1. Gamma Rays from ALP-Photon Conversion and Inverse Compton Reprocessing in Neutron Star Magnetospheres

    astro-ph.HE 2026-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    ALP-to-photon conversion near four pulsars produces mostly sub-MeV emission: Fermi-LAT is insensitive to the channel, COMPTEL data already exclude new parameter space at high ALP mass, and COSI could probe much more.

  2. Can Orbital Decay of Accreting Binary Pulsars Probe Dark Matter?

    hep-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Dark matter accretion onto binary pulsars is far too weak to affect observed orbital decay, so existing pulsar timing data cannot probe dark matter microphysics.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

166 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  2. [2]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. D 16, 1791 (1977)

    1977

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  4. [4]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  5. [5]

    Preskill, M

    J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Physics Letters B 120, 127 (1983)

    1983

  6. [6]

    Abbott and P

    L. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B 120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  7. [7]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B 120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  8. [8]

    S. J. Witte, D. Noordhuis, T. D. P. Edwards, and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. D 104, 103030 (2021), arXiv:2104.07670 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2021

Show all 166 references
  1. [9]

    A. J. Millar, S. Baum, M. Lawson, and M. C. D. Marsh, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 2021, 013 (2021), arXiv:2107.07399 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    J. I. McDonald, B. Garbrecht, and P. Millington, JCAP 12, 031 (2023), arXiv:2307.11812 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    E. U. Gin´ es, D. Noordhuis, C. Weniger, and S. J. Witte, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083007 (2024), arXiv:2405.08865 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J. I. McDonald and P. Millington, JCAP 09, 072 (2024), arXiv:2407.11192 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    M. S. Pshirkov and S. B. Popov, J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 108, 384 (2009), arXiv:0711.1264 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  6. [14]

    F. P. Huang, K. Kadota, T. Sekiguchi, and H. Tashiro, Phys. Rev. D 97, 123001 (2018), arXiv:1803.08230 [hep- ph]

    2018 arXiv

  7. [15]

    A. Hook, Y. Kahn, B. R. Safdi, and Z. Sun, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 241102 (2018), arXiv:1804.03145 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  8. [16]

    B. R. Safdi, Z. Sun, and A. Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 99, 123021 (2019), arXiv:1811.01020 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    R. A. Battye, B. Garbrecht, J. I. McDonald, F. Pace, and S. Srinivasan, Phys. Rev. D 102, 023504 (2020), arXiv:1910.11907 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Leroy, M

    M. Leroy, M. Chianese, T. D. P. Edwards, and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123003 (2020), arXiv:1912.08815 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    J. W. Foster et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 171301 (2020), arXiv:2004.00011 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Prabhu and N

    A. Prabhu and N. M. Rapidis, JCAP 10, 054 (2020), arXiv:2005.03700 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    J. H. Buckley, P. S. B. Dev, F. Ferrer, and F. P. Huang, Phys. Rev. D 103, 043015 (2021), arXiv:2004.06486 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    R. A. Battye, B. Garbrecht, J. I. McDonald, and S. Srinivasan, JHEP 09, 105 (2021), arXiv:2104.08290 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Nurmi, E

    S. Nurmi, E. D. Schiappacasse, and T. T. Yanagida, (2021), arXiv:2102.05680 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [25]

    J. W. Foster, S. J. Witte, M. Lawson, T. Linden, V. Gaj- jar, C. Weniger, and B. R. Safdi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 251102 (2022), arXiv:2202.08274 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [26]

    S. J. Witte, S. Baum, M. Lawson, M. C. D. Marsh, A. J. Millar, and G. Salinas, Phys. Rev. D 107, 063013 (2023), arXiv:2212.08079 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [27]

    R. A. Battye, M. J. Keith, J. I. McDonald, S. Srinivasan, B. W. Stappers, and P. Weltevrede, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063001 (2023), arXiv:2303.11792 [astro-ph.CO]

    2023 arXiv

  19. [28]

    J. I. McDonald and S. J. Witte, Phys. Rev. D 108, 103021 (2023), arXiv:2309.08655 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Noordhuis, A

    D. Noordhuis, A. Prabhu, S. J. Witte, A. Y. Chen, F. Cruz, and C. Weniger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 111004 (2023), arXiv:2209.09917 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Z. H. Xue, K. J. Lee, X. D. Gao, and R. X. Xu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 083009 (2023), arXiv:2310.06660 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Tjemsland, J

    J. Tjemsland, J. McDonald, and S. J. Witte, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023015 (2024), arXiv:2310.18403 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Noordhuis, A

    D. Noordhuis, A. Prabhu, C. Weniger, and S. J. Witte, Phys. Rev. X 14, 041015 (2024), arXiv:2307.11811 [hep- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    Caputo, S

    A. Caputo, S. J. Witte, A. A. Philippov, and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 161001 (2024), arXiv:2311.14795 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Witte, D

    S. Witte, D. Noordhuis, A. Prabhu, and C. Weniger, PoS COSMICWISPers, 022 (2024)

    2024

  26. [35]

    Kouvaris, T

    C. Kouvaris, T. Liu, and K.-F. Lyu, Phys. Rev. D 109, 29 023008 (2024), arXiv:2202.11096 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Maseizik and G

    D. Maseizik and G. Sigl, (2024), arXiv:2404.07908 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [37]

    N. Song, L. Su, and L. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 111, 043025 (2025), arXiv:2402.15144 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  29. [38]

    S. J. Witte, D. Noordhuis, T. D. Edwards, and C. Weniger, Physical Review D 104 (2021), 10.1103/physrevd.104.103030

    2021 doi

  30. [39]

    R. A. Battye, J. Darling, J. I. McDonald, and S. Srinivasan, Phys. Rev. D 105, L021305 (2022), arXiv:2107.01225 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Prabhu, Astrophys

    A. Prabhu, Astrophys. J. Lett. 946, L52 (2023), arXiv:2302.11645 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Goldreich and W

    P. Goldreich and W. H. Julian, Astrophys. J. 157, 869 (1969)

    1969

  33. [42]

    P. M. Woods and C. Thompson, in Compact stellar X- ray sources , Vol. 39, edited by W. H. G. Lewin and M. van der Klis (2006) pp. 547–586

    2006

  34. [43]

    Thompson, R

    C. Thompson, R. C. Duncan, P. M. Woods, C. Kouve- liotou, M. H. Finger, and J. van Paradijs, Astrophys. J. 543, 340 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9908086 [astro-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  35. [44]

    V. M. Kaspi and A. M. Beloborodov, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics 55, 261–301 (2017)

    2017

  36. [45]

    Kuiper, W

    L. Kuiper, W. Hermsen, P. R. den Hartog, and W. Coll- mar, The Astrophysical Journal 645, 556–575 (2006)

    2006

  37. [46]

    G¨ otz, S

    D. G¨ otz, S. Mereghetti, A. Tiengo, and P. Espos- ito, Astron. Astrophys. 449, L31 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0602359 [astro-ph]

    2006

  38. [47]

    Enoto, S

    T. Enoto, S. Shibata, T. Kitaguchi, Y. Suwa, T. Uchide, H. Nishioka, S. Kisaka, T. Nakano, H. Murakami, and K. Makishima, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 231, 8 (2017)

    2017

  39. [48]

    Dib and V

    R. Dib and V. M. Kaspi, Astrophys. J. 784, 37 (2014), arXiv:1401.3085 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Hulleman, A

    F. Hulleman, A. F. Tennant, M. H. van Kerkwijk, S. R. Kulkarni, C. Kouveliotou, and S. K. Patel, Astrophys. J. Lett. 563, L49 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0110172 [astro- ph]

    2001 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Durant and M

    M. Durant and M. H. van Kerkwijk, Astrophys. J. 648, 534 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0605330

    2006 arXiv

  42. [51]

    A. M. Beloborodov and X. Li, Astrophys. J. 833, 261 (2016), arXiv:1605.09077 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  43. [52]

    A. M. Beloborodov and C. Thompson, Astrophys. J. 657, 967 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0602417 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  44. [53]

    Thompson and A

    C. Thompson and A. Kostenko, The Astrophysical Jour- nal 904, 184 (2020)

    2020

  45. [54]

    Zhang and C

    J. Zhang and C. Thompson, (2024), arXiv:2407.08810 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Kostenko and C

    A. Kostenko and C. Thompson, Astrophys. J. 869, 44 (2018), arXiv:1904.03324 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  47. [56]

    Thompson and R

    C. Thompson and R. C. Duncan, MNRAS 275, 255 (1995)

    1995

  48. [57]

    Thompson and R

    C. Thompson and R. C. Duncan, Astrophys. J. 561, 980 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0110675 [astro-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Thompson, H

    C. Thompson, H. Yang, and N. Ortiz, The Astrophys- ical Journal 841, 54 (2017)

    2017

  50. [59]

    Parfrey, A

    K. Parfrey, A. M. Beloborodov, and L. Hui, Astrophys. J. Lett. 754, L12 (2012), arXiv:1201.3635 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Parfrey, A

    K. Parfrey, A. M. Beloborodov, and L. Hui, Astrophys. J. 774, 92 (2013), arXiv:1306.4335 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [61]

    J. F. Mahlmann, T. Akg¨ un, J. A. Pons, M. A. Aloy, and P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.490, 4858 (2019), arXiv:1908.00010 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  53. [62]

    J. F. Mahlmann, A. A. Philippov, V. Mewes, B. Rip- perda, E. R. Most, and L. Sironi, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 947, L34 (2023)

    2023

  54. [63]

    A. M. Beloborodov, The Astrophysical Journal 703, 1044 (2009)

    2009

  55. [64]

    G¨ oˇ g¨ uS ¸ , P

    E. G¨ oˇ g¨ uS ¸ , P. M. Woods, C. Kouveliotou, J. van Paradijs, M. S. Briggs, R. C. Duncan, and C. Thomp- son, Astrophys. J. Lett. 526, L93 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9910062 [astro-ph]

    1999

  56. [65]

    G¨ oˇ g¨ u¸ s, P

    E. G¨ oˇ g¨ u¸ s, P. M. Woods, C. Kouveliotou, J. van Paradijs, M. S. Briggs, R. C. Duncan, and C. Thompson, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 532, L121 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0002181 [astro-ph]

    2000 arXiv

  57. [66]

    N. Rea, G. L. Israel, R. Turolla, P. Esposito, S. Mereghetti, D. G¨ otz, S. Zane, A. Tiengo, K. Hur- ley, M. Feroci, M. Still, V. Yershov, C. Winkler, R. Perna, F. Bernardini, P. Ubertini, L. Stella, S. Campana, M. Van Der Klis, and P. Woods, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astro...

    2009

  58. [67]

    Magnetar outbursts: an obser- vational review,

    N. Rea and P. Esposito, “Magnetar outbursts: an obser- vational review,” in High-Energy Emission from Pulsars and their Systems (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010) p. 247–273

    2010

  59. [68]

    Esposito, N

    P. Esposito, N. Rea, A. Borghese, F. Coti Zelati, D. Vi- gan` o, G. L. Israel, A. Tiengo, A. Ridolfi, A. Possenti, M. Burgay, D. G¨ otz, F. Pintore, L. Stella, C. Dehman, M. Ronchi, S. Campana, A. Garcia-Garcia, V. Graber, S. Mereghetti, R. Perna, G. A. Rodr ´ ıguez Castillo, ...

    2020 arXiv

  60. [69]

    C. D. o. Bochenek, Nature 587, 59–62 (2020)

    2020

  61. [70]

    Amiri et al

    M. Amiri et al. (CHIME/FRB), The Astrophysical Journal 863, 48 (2018)

    2018

  62. [71]

    Amiri et al

    M. Amiri et al. (CHIME/FRB), Nature 566, 230 (2019), arXiv:1901.04524 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  63. [72]

    P. M. Woods, V. M. Kaspi, C. Thompson, F. P. Gavriil, H. L. Marshall, D. Chakrabarty, K. Flanagan, J. Heyl, and L. Hernquist, Astrophys. J. 605, 378 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0310575

    2004 arXiv

  64. [73]

    Lyubarsky, D

    Y. Lyubarsky, D. Eichler, and C. Thompson, Astro- phys. J. Lett. 580, L69 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0211110 [astro-ph]

    2002 arXiv

  65. [74]

    Li and A

    X. Li and A. M. Beloborodov, Astrophys. J. 815, 25 (2015), arXiv:1505.03465 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  66. [75]

    Thompson, M

    C. Thompson, M. Lyutikov, and S. R. Kulkarni, Astro- phys. J. 574, 332 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0110677 [astro- ph]

    2002 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Goldreich and A

    P. Goldreich and A. Reisenegger, Astrophys. J.395, 250 (1992)

    1992

  68. [77]

    Cumming, P

    A. Cumming, P. Arras, and E. G. Zweibel, Astrophys. J. 609, 999 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402392

    2004 arXiv

  69. [78]

    K. N. Gourgouliatos and A. Cumming, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 438, 1618 (2013), https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- pdf/438/2/1618/18501517/stt2300.pdf

    2013

  70. [79]

    A. N. Timokhin and A. K. Harding, Astrophys. J. 810, 144 (2015), arXiv:1504.02194 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  71. [80]

    Philippov and M

    A. Philippov and M. Kramer, Annual Review of Astron and Astrophys 60, 495 (2022)

    2022

  72. [81]

    J. A. Hibschman and J. Arons, Astrophys. J. 554, 624 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0102175 [astro-ph]

    2001 arXiv

  73. [82]

    A. N. Timokhin and A. K. Harding, Astrophys. J. 871, 12 (2019), arXiv:1803.08924 [astro-ph.HE]. 30

    2019 arXiv

  74. [83]

    A. M. Beloborodov, Astrophys. J. 777, 114 (2013), arXiv:1209.4063 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  75. [84]

    A. M. Beloborodov, Astrophys. J. 762, 13 (2013), arXiv:1201.0664 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  76. [85]

    R. F. Archibald, V. M. Kaspi, C. Y. Ng, P. Scholz, A. P. Beardmore, N. Gehrels, and J. A. Kennea, Astrophys. J. 800, 33 (2015), arXiv:1412.2780 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Thompson, Astrophys

    C. Thompson, Astrophys. J. 688, 1258 (2008), arXiv:0802.2571 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Thompson and A

    C. Thompson and A. M. Beloborodov, Astrophys. J. 634, 565 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0408538

    2005 arXiv

  79. [88]

    A. A. Kozlenkov and I. G. Mitrofanov, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 64, 1173 (1986)

    1986

  80. [89]

    Kostenko and C

    A. Kostenko and C. Thompson, Astrophys. J. 875, 23 (2019), arXiv:1904.03325 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  81. [90]

    S. A. Olausen and V. M. Kaspi, ApJS 212, 6 (2014), arXiv:1309.4167 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  82. [91]

    E. V. Gotthelf and J. P. Halpern, Astrophys. Space Sci. 308, 79 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0608473 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  83. [92]

    Perna and E

    R. Perna and E. V. Gotthelf, Astrophys. J. 681, 522 (2008), arXiv:0803.2042 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  84. [93]

    F. P. Gavriil and V. M. Kaspi, Astrophys. J. Lett. 609, L67 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0404113

    2004 arXiv

  85. [94]

    M. J. Coe, L. R. Jones, and H. Lehto, MNRAS 270, 178 (1994)

    1994

  86. [95]

    Tiengo, P

    A. Tiengo, P. Esposito, S. Mereghetti, R. Turolla, L. No- bili, F. Gastaldello, D. G¨ otz, G. L. Israel, N. Rea, L. Stella, S. Zane, and G. F. Bignami, Nature (Lon- don) 500, 312 (2013), arXiv:1308.4987 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  87. [96]

    G. A. Rodr ´ ıguez Castillo, G. L. Israel, A. Tiengo, D. Salvetti, R. Turolla, S. Zane, N. Rea, P. Esposito, S. Mereghetti, R. Perna, L. Stella, J. A. Pons, S. Cam- pana, D. G¨ otz, and S. Motta, MNRAS 456, 4145 (2016), arXiv:1510.09157 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  88. [97]

    Pizzocaro, A

    D. Pizzocaro, A. Tiengo, S. Mereghetti, R. Turolla, P. Esposito, L. Stella, S. Zane, N. Rea, F. Coti Ze- lati, and G. Israel, Astron. Astrophys. 626, A39 (2019), arXiv:1904.07553 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  89. [98]

    Coti Zelati et al

    F. Coti Zelati et al. , Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 471, 1819 (2017), arXiv:1707.01514 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  90. [99]

    N. Rea, F. C. Zelati, D. Vigan` o, A. Papitto, F. Baganoff, A. Borghese, S. Campana, P. Esposito, D. Haggard, G. L. Israel, S. Mereghetti, R. P. Mignani, R. Perna, J. A. Pons, G. Ponti, L. Stella, D. F. Torres, R. Tur- olla, and S. Zane, The Astrophysical Journal 894, 159 (2020)

    2020

  91. [100]

    N. Rea, P. Esposito, J. A. Pons, R. Turolla, D. F. Torres, G. L. Israel, A. Possenti, M. Burgay, D. Vi- gan` o, A. Papitto, R. Perna, L. Stella, G. Ponti, F. K. Baganoff, D. Haggard, A. Camero-Arranz, S. Zane, A. Minter, S. Mereghetti, A. Tiengo, R. Sch¨ odel, M. Fe- roci, R. ...

    2013 arXiv

  92. [101]

    K. Mori, E. V. Gotthelf, S. Zhang, H. An, F. K. Baganoff, N. M. Barri` ere, A. M. Beloborodov, S. E. Boggs, F. E. Christensen, W. W. Craig, F. Dufour, B. W. Grefenstette, C. J. Hailey, F. A. Harrison, J. Hong, V. M. Kaspi, J. A. Kennea, K. K. Madsen, C. B. Markwardt, M. Nynka,...

    2013

  93. [102]

    R. C. R. de Lima, J. G. Coelho, J. P. Pereira, C. V. Rodrigues, and J. A. Rueda, Astrophys. J. 889, 165 (2020), arXiv:1912.12336 [astro-ph.SR]

    2020 arXiv

  94. [103]

    R. P. Eatough, H. Falcke, R. Karuppusamy, K. J. Lee, D. J. Champion, E. F. Keane, G. Desvignes, D. H. F. M. Schnitzeler, L. G. Spitler, M. Kramer, B. Klein, C. Bassa, G. C. Bower, A. Brunthaler, I. Cognard, A. T. Deller, P. B. Demorest, P. C. C. Freire, A. Kraus, A. G. Lyne, A...

    2013 arXiv

  95. [104]

    L. G. Spitler et al., The Astrophysical Journal 790, 101 (2014)

    2014

  96. [105]

    Torne, G

    P. Torne, G. Desvignes, R. P. Eatough, R. Karup- pusamy, G. Paubert, M. Kramer, I. Cognard, D. J. Champion, and L. G. Spitler, MNRAS 465, 242 (2017), arXiv:1610.07616 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  97. [106]

    M. P. Muno, F. E. Bauer, F. K. Baganoff, R. M. Bandy- opadhyay, G. C. Bower, W. N. Brandt, P. S. Broos, A. Cotera, S. S. Eikenberry, G. P. Garmire, S. D. Hy- man, N. E. Kassim, C. C. Lang, T. J. W. Lazio, C. Law, J. C. Mauerhan, M. R. Morris, T. Nagata, S. Nishiyama, S. Park, ...

    2009 arXiv

  98. [107]

    P. C. Gregory and G. G. Fahlman, Nature (London) 287, 805 (1980)

    1980

  99. [108]

    J. Heyl, R. Taverna, R. Turolla, et al. , MNRAS 527, 12219 (2024), arXiv:2311.03637 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  100. [109]

    Gedalin and D

    M. Gedalin and D. B. Melrose, Phys. Rev. E 64, 027401 (2001)

    2001

  101. [110]

    M. A. Ruderman and P. G. Sutherland, Astrophys. J. 196, 51 (1975)

    1975

  102. [111]

    Philippov, A

    A. Philippov, A. Timokhin, and A. Spitkovsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 245101 (2020), arXiv:2001.02236 [astro- ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  103. [112]

    F. Cruz, T. Grismayer, and L. O. Silva, Astrophys. J. 908, 149 (2021), arXiv:2012.05587 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  104. [113]

    F. Cruz, T. Grismayer, A. Y. Chen, A. Spitkovsky, and L. O. Silva, Astrophysical Journal Letters 919, L4 (2021), arXiv:2108.11702 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  105. [114]

    Bransgrove, A

    A. Bransgrove, A. M. Beloborodov, and Y. Levin, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 958, L9 (2023)

    2023

  106. [115]

    Ben´ aˇ cek, A

    J. Ben´ aˇ cek, A. Timokhin, P. A. Mu˜ noz, A. Jessner, T. Rievajov´ a, M. Pohl, and J. B¨ uchner, Astron. As- trophys. 691, A137 (2024), arXiv:2405.20866 [astro- ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  107. [116]

    Chernoglazov, A

    A. Chernoglazov, A. Philippov, and A. Timokhin, As- trophys. J. Lett. 974, L32 (2024), arXiv:2409.15409 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  108. [117]

    Thompson, Astrophys

    C. Thompson, Astrophys. J. 933, 231 (2022), arXiv:2111.01958 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  109. [118]

    Thompson, Astrophys

    C. Thompson, Astrophys. J. 933, 232 (2022), arXiv:2111.01959 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  110. [119]

    Sikivie, Phys

    P. Sikivie, Phys. Rev. Lett. 51, 1415 (1983)

    1983

  111. [120]

    DePanfilis et al

    S. DePanfilis et al. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 839 (1987)

    1987

  112. [121]

    Hagmann, P

    C. Hagmann, P. Sikivie, N. S. Sullivan, and D. B. Tan- ner, Phys. Rev. D 42, 1297 (1990)

    1990

  113. [122]

    Hagmann et al

    C. Hagmann et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 2043 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9801286

    1998 arXiv

  114. [123]

    S. J. Asztalos et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. D 64, 092003 (2001)

    2001

  115. [124]

    S. J. Asztalos et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 041301 (2010), arXiv:0910.5914 [astro-ph.CO]

    2010 arXiv

  116. [125]

    Du et al

    N. Du et al. (ADMX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 151301 (2018), arXiv:1804.05750 [hep-ex]. 31

    2018 arXiv

  117. [126]

    Braine et al

    T. Braine et al. (ADMX), Physical Review Letters 124 (2020), 10.1103/physrevlett.124.101303

    2020 doi

  118. [127]

    Bradley et al

    R. Bradley et al. , Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 777 (2003)

    2003

  119. [128]

    S. J. Asztalos et al. , Phys. Rev. D 69, 011101 (2004)

    2004

  120. [129]

    T. M. Shokair et al. , International Journal of Modern Physics A 29, 1443004 (2014)

    2014

  121. [130]

    B. M. Brubaker et al. (HAYSTAC), Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 061302 (2017)

    2017

  122. [131]

    Zhong et al

    L. Zhong et al. (HAYSTAC), Physical Review D 97 (2018), 10.1103/physrevd.97.092001

    2018 doi

  123. [132]

    K. M. Backes et al. (HAYSTAC), Nature 590, 238 (2021)

    2021

  124. [133]

    The organ experiment: An ax- ion haloscope above 15 ghz,

    B. T. McAllister et al., “The organ experiment: An ax- ion haloscope above 15 ghz,” (2017), arXiv:1706.00209 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  125. [134]

    Crescini et al

    N. Crescini et al. (QUAX), Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 171801 (2020), arXiv:2001.08940 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  126. [135]

    J. Choi, S. Ahn, B. Ko, S. Lee, and Y. Semertzidis, NIM-A 1013, 165667 (2021)

    2021

  127. [136]

    ´Alvarez-Melc´ on et al

    A. ´Alvarez-Melc´ on et al. , JHEP 2021 (2021), 10.1007/jhep10(2021)075

    2021 doi

  128. [137]

    Anastassopoulos et al

    V. Anastassopoulos et al. (CAST), Nature Physics 13, 584–590 (2017)

    2017

  129. [138]

    Ruz et al

    J. Ruz et al. , (2024), arXiv:2407.03828 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  130. [139]

    M. J. Dolan, F. J. Hiskens, and R. R. Volkas, JCAP 10, 096 (2022), arXiv:2207.03102 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  131. [140]

    Abuter, A

    R. Abuter, A. Amorim, M. Baub¨ ock, J. P. Berger, H. Bonnet, W. Brandner, Y. Cl´ enet, V. C. D. Foresto, P. T. D. Zeeuw, J. Dexter, G. Duvert, A. Eckart, F. Eisenhauer, N. M. F. Schreiber, P. Garcia, F. Gao, E. Gendron, R. Genzel, O. Gerhard, S. Gillessen, M. Habibi, X. Hauboi...

    2019

  132. [141]

    P. R. Jewell and R. M. Prestage, https://doi.org/10.1117/12.550631 5489, 312 (2004)

    2004 doi

  133. [142]

    White, F

    E. White, F. D. Ghigo, R. M. Prestage, D. T. Frayer, R. J. Maddalena, P. T. Wu, J. J. Brandt, D. Egan, J. D. Nelson, and J. Ray, Astronomy & Astrophysics 659, A113 (2022)

    2022

  134. [143]

    G. B. T. Collaboration, (2025)

    2025

  135. [144]

    Wootten and A

    A. Wootten and A. R. Thompson, Proceedings of the IEEE 97, 1463 (2009)

    2009

  136. [146]

    P. E. Dewdney, P. J. Hall, R. T. Schilizzi, and T. J. L. Lazio, Proceedings of the IEEE 97, 1482 (2009)

    2009

  137. [147]

    Braun, A

    R. Braun, A. Bonaldi, T. Bourke, E. Keane, and J. Wagg, (2019)

    2019

  138. [148]

    T. R. Hunter, D. Petry, D. Barkats, S. Corder, and R. Indebetouw, 10.5281/ZENODO.7502160

    doi

  139. [149]

    G. M. Green, E. Schlafly, C. Zucker, J. S. Speagle, and D. Finkbeiner, The Astrophysical Journal 887, 93 (2019)

    2019

  140. [150]

    S. Roy, C. Blanco, C. Dessert, A. Prabhu, and T. Temim, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 071003 (2025), arXiv:2311.04987 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  141. [151]

    D. J. Schlegel, D. P. Finkbeiner, and M. Davis, Astro- phys. J. 500, 525 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9710327 [astro- ph]

    1998 arXiv

  142. [152]

    E. F. Schlafly and D. P. Finkbeiner, The Astrophysical Journal 737, 103 (2011)

    2011

  143. [153]

    J. Gao, A. Li, and B. W. Jiang, Earth, Planets and Space 65, 1127 (2013)

    2013

  144. [154]

    C. F. Laporte, K. V. Johnston, F. A. G´ omez, N. Garavito-Camargo, and G. Besla, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 481, 286 (2018)

    2018

  145. [155]

    X. Ou, L. Necib, A. Wetzel, A. Frebel, J. Bailin, and M. Oeur, (2025)

    2025

  146. [156]

    P. F. Hopkins, A. Wetzel, D. Kereˇ s, C.-A. Faucher- Gigu` ere, E. Quataert, M. Boylan-Kolchin, N. Mur- ray, C. C. Hayward, S. Garrison-Kimmel, C. Hummels, R. Feldmann, P. Torrey, X. Ma, D. Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, K.- Y. Su, M. Orr, D. Schmitz, I. Escala, R. Sanderson, M. Y. Grudi...

    2018

  147. [157]

    P. F. Hopkins, M. Y. Grudic, K. Kremer, S. S. R. Offner, D. Guszejnov, and A. L. Rosen, The Open Journal of Astrophysics 7 (2024), 10.33232/001C.122857

    2024 doi

  148. [158]

    P. F. Hopkins, J. Squire, K. Y. Su, U. P. Steinwandel, K. Kremer, Y. Shi, M. Y. Grudi´ c, S. Wellons, C. A. Faucher-Gigu` ere, D. Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, N. Murray, and E. Quataert, Open Journal of Astrophysics 7 (2024), 10.21105/ASTRO.2310.04506

    2024

  149. [159]

    P. F. Hopkins, M. Y. Grudi´ c, K. Y. Su, S. Wellons, D. Angl´ es-Alc´ azar, U. P. Steinwandel, D. Guszejnov, N. Murray, C. A. Faucher-Gigu` ere, E. Quataert, and D. Kereˇ s, Open Journal of Astrophysics7, 18 (2024)

    2024

  150. [160]

    Nesti and P

    F. Nesti and P. Salucci, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2013 (2013), 10.1088/1475- 7516/2013/07/016

    2013 doi

  151. [161]

    Lacroix, Astronomy & Astrophysics 619, A46 (2018)

    T. Lacroix, Astronomy & Astrophysics 619, A46 (2018)

    2018

  152. [162]

    Prabhu, Physical Review D 104 (2021), 10.1103/physrevd.104.055038

    A. Prabhu, Physical Review D 104 (2021), 10.1103/physrevd.104.055038

    2021 doi

  153. [163]

    Heisenberg and H

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 98, 714 (1936)

    1936

  154. [164]

    M. V. Medvedev, Phys. Plasmas 30, 092112 (2023), arXiv:2309.07316 [physics.plasm-ph]

    2023

  155. [165]

    V. S. Beskin, A. V. Gurevich, and Y. N. Istomin, Physics of the pulsar magnetosphere (1993)

    1993

  156. [166]

    Brahma, A

    N. Brahma, A. Berlin, and K. Schutz, Phys. Rev. D 108, 095045 (2023), arXiv:2308.08586 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  157. [167]

    Sridhar and P

    S. Sridhar and P. Goldreich, Astrophys. J. 432, 612 (1994)

    1994

  158. [168]

    beads on a wire

    P. Goldreich and S. Sridhar, Astrophys. J. 438, 763 (1995). 32 Appendix A: Axion-photon Conversion in Super-critical Magnetic Fields The Lagrangian describing axion-photon mixing in- medium is L ⊃ −1 4 gaγγ aFµνF µν − AµJ µ+ 1 2 ∂µa∂µa − 1 2 m2 aa2 − 1 4 Fµν ˜F µνa, (A1) where...

    1995

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.