Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Antimatter dark-matter nuggets passing within 100 km of the LHC could shake dust loose in the beam pipe, explaining 1–10% of its mysterious 'UFO' events and turning the accelerator into a dark-matter detector.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 01:02 UTC pith:ZXCSEC7H

load-bearing objection Acoustic attenuation kills the rate estimate, but the UFO-burst correlation search is a testable idea worth a footnote. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.10562 v2 pith:ZXCSEC7H submitted 2026-02-11 hep-ph astro-ph.IMhep-exphysics.acc-ph

Unidentified falling objects in the LHC as dark matter signals

Xunyu Liang , Ariel Zhitnitsky This is my paper
classification hep-ph astro-ph.IMhep-exphysics.acc-ph
keywords axion quark nuggetsunidentified falling objects (UFOs)dark matter detectionLHC beam lossesacoustic shock wavesdust particle releasebeam loss monitorssignal-to-noise ratio
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

Unidentified Falling Objects (UFOs) are sporadic beam-loss spikes at the LHC, usually blamed on dust particles that fall into the proton beam; the mechanism that releases these dust particles has never been pinned down. This paper argues that a small fraction of them — roughly 1–10% — could be triggered by antimatter axion quark nuggets (AQNs), macroscopic dark-matter candidates of mass 5–1000 g. As an AQN travels underground within about 100 km of the ring, it deposits energy into the surrounding rock, launching a several-kilohertz acoustic shock wave that reaches the beam screen with an overpressure of a few hundred pascals — enough to overcome the adhesive force holding a dust grain in place. The released grain then falls into the beam and produces a UFO. Because the acoustic wave travels across the whole ring, the signature is a burst of correlated UFOs at widely separated locations within milliseconds to about two seconds; three such correlated events within 2 s would give a signal-to-noise ratio above 5 across the full allowed AQN mass range in roughly 360 hours of observation. If correct, the LHC's existing beam-loss monitoring system becomes a large, broadband acoustic dark-matter detector.

Core claim

The central claim is that an antimatter AQN passing within ~100 km of the LHC launches a several-kilohertz acoustic shock wave whose overpressure at the ring (~360 Pa at 100 km) exerts a force on beam-screen dust grains exceeding their adhesive threshold. The resulting impulse kicks a 10 µm grain with ~10⁶ eV — enough to release it into the beam, where it registers as a UFO. From the AQN flux and the ordinary-UFO background, the paper estimates ~0.045 such bursts per hour at the 100 g benchmark (1–10% of all UFOs) and shows that three correlated UFOs within 2 s would give signal-to-noise ratio above 5 for every allowed AQN mass after 360 hours of observation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the AQN's acoustic shock wave, with meteor-like far-field scaling P(r) ∝ r^{-3/4}, ν(r) ∝ r^{-1/4}, normalized to the annihilation energy release. At the LHC this gives an overpressure of a few hundred pascals at ~100 km and a frequency of a few kHz. The wave's pressure acts on dust grains (force = P × area, coherent because grain size ≪ wavelength), and the resulting impulse is compared against the dust-release thresholds (F ≈ 10⁻⁸ N, E_crit ≈ 10⁶ eV). The discrimination tool is timing: correlated UFOs across the ring must be separated by roughly 6 ms to 2 s, and the signal-to-noise ratio is computed from the Poisson background of ordinary UFOs.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise, flagged by the paper itself in Appendix B, is that ~4 kHz acoustic waves travel through ~100 km of solid rock with negligible absorption, keeping the overpressure at the LHC ring near a few hundred pascals; if attenuation is appreciable, the predicted event rate and signal-to-noise ratios shrink dramatically.

What would settle it

Use published seismic attenuation data (quality factor Q) for the crustal rock around the LHC to compute the attenuation length at 3–4 kHz; if that length is far below 100 km, the overpressure at the ring falls below the dust-release threshold and the event-rate prediction collapses. In parallel, search the archived beam-loss-monitor logs for ≥3 UFO events at distinct ring locations within 2 s: finding none over 360 hours of live time would directly contradict the claimed SNR>5.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the proposal is right, the LHC's existing 4000 beam-loss monitors constitute a ready-made broadband acoustic dark-matter detector; no new hardware is needed to look for the signal.
  • AQN-induced UFOs can be distinguished from ordinary ones by their tight multi-location time correlation (6 ms–2 s) and by correlation with seismic and infrasound signals, so a clean search is possible with current data.
  • Detecting three correlated UFOs within 2 s for any allowed AQN mass would yield SNR > 5 after ~360 hours of measurement, meaning a positive detection is within reach of standard LHC running rather than requiring a dedicated experiment.
  • If confirmed, roughly 1–10% of the UFO events that currently disrupt LHC operations would be reinterpreted as direct terrestrial dark-matter interactions, connecting accelerator physics with dark-matter searches.
  • The mechanism generalizes to other particle accelerators, though with reduced sensitivity, suggesting accelerators as a new class of acoustic dark-matter observatories.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A testable consequence the paper leaves implicit: existing archived beam-loss data can immediately be scanned for clusters of ≥3 UFOs at widely separated ring locations within 2 s; an absence of such clusters after ~360 hours of exposure would directly bound the AQN flux as strongly as the paper's claimed sensitivity.
  • The paper's sound-attenuation assumption is the likeliest point of failure. Crustal rock at 3–4 kHz may have quality factors implying attenuation lengths well under 100 km; plugging measured Q values into Eq. (10a) would either support or sink the predicted overpressure, and this can be checked with published geophysics data before any dedicated search.
  • If the mechanism is real, the same acoustic trigger should also induce micro-vibrations detectable by the accelerator's seismic network; correlating BLM UFO bursts with local seismic events would provide an independent confirmation channel the paper only sketches.
  • The 1–10% estimate assumes the benchmark AQN mass 100 g and a power-law mass distribution; a lighter mean mass would lower the rate, so the SNR table doubles as a mass-measurement tool once bursts are identified — the number of correlated UFOs per burst encodes the AQN's path and size.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that a small fraction (1–10%) of LHC Unidentified Falling Objects (UFOs) are triggered by axion quark nuggets (AQNs) passing within roughly 100 km of the LHC. The central mechanism is that an antimatter AQN moving underground produces an acoustic shock wave with overpressure P(r) ~ 360 Pa at r = 100 km and frequency ~3.5 kHz; this pressure acts on dust particles on the beam screen and releases them into the beam. The authors then estimate an AQN-induced UFO burst rate of ~0.045 events/hour and argue that three correlated UFOs within 2 s would give SNR > 5 over 360 hours for the entire allowed AQN mass range, making the LHC a practical broadband acoustic dark matter detector. The quantitative chain runs through Eqs. (10a), (11), (13), (16), (17), and Table I, with the acoustic propagation model taken from prior work by the same group.

Significance. If the quantitative mechanism were correct, the proposal would be creative and significant: it would turn an operational nuisance at the LHC into a large-area detector for macroscopic dark matter and would provide a distinctive, falsifiable multi-BLM correlation signature. The paper is clearly written, transparent about the model assumptions, and honestly flags the main caveat in Appendix B. However, the central quantitative claim rests on an assumption that is physically untenable at the stated distance and frequency: negligible sound absorption in rock over ~100 km at ~3.5 kHz. Since the overpressure estimate, event rate, and SNR all scale from Eq. (10a), the proposed detection mechanism is not supported by the current manuscript. I therefore cannot recommend publication in its present form.

major comments (4)
  1. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B10a) and (10a)] The central estimate P(r) ~ 360 Pa at 100 km assumes negligible acoustic attenuation in solid rock at ~3.5 kHz. The paper explicitly states that an 'additional exponential attenuation e^{-X(r)}' is neglected because 'the physics is complicated in solid and hard to evaluate.' This is load-bearing, not a minor technicality. For compressional waves in rock, the one-way amplitude loss is approximately exp[-\pi f r / (Q c_s)]. With f = 3.5 kHz, c_s = 4 km/s, and r = 100 km, even an optimistic quality factor Q = 1000 gives exp[-275]; Q = 100 gives exp[-2750]. Thus the 360 Pa pressure does not arrive at the LHC tunnel; the wave is effectively extinct long before 100 km. Because Eqs. (11), (13), (16), (17), and Table I all inherit this overpressure, the proposed event rate and SNR collapse once the acknowledged but unsupported assumption is relaxed. The authors provide no measurement, simulation
  2. [Eqs. (10) and (B1)] The r^{-3/4} and r^{-1/4} scaling is taken from meteor-generated infrasound in a homogeneous fluid medium. Applying this to elastic waves in heterogeneous solid rock over 100 km requires justification. Even setting aside intrinsic absorption, geometric spreading, scattering, and mode conversion in the Earth's crust make the homogeneous weak-shock scaling highly questionable at these distances. A concrete wave-propagation model or seismic calibration is needed before Eq. (10a) can be used as the basis for an event-rate estimate.
  3. [Sec. VII, Eq. (24) and Table I] The background model treats regular UFOs as independent Poisson events with rate 10/hour. However, the same paper describes 'burst sequences' and 'UFO storms' in Sec. IIA, where multiple UFOs occur close in time at different locations. If such correlated regular-UFO bursts exist, they would directly mimic the proposed AQN signature and dominate the background in Eq. (24). The SNR in Table I should be recomputed using measured BLM correlations from LHC operations, not a Poisson ansatz with a single average rate.
  4. [Eqs. (11)–(14)] The dust-release mechanism assumes that the free-field acoustic overpressure P(r) acts directly across a dust particle facing vacuum. In reality the wave must couple through the beam screen wall, whose mechanical impedance and response at ~3.5 kHz are not modeled. The pressure acting on a dust particle may be substantially different from P(r). This is an additional unquantified step in the chain from AQN to UFO.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 2] The figure states \lambda ~ 0.4 m, but with c_s = 4 km/s and \nu = 3.5 kHz, \lambda \approx 1.1 m. Please correct or clarify the sound speed used.
  2. [Eqs. (10a) and (B10a)] The main text uses P ~ 3.6 \times 10^2 Pa while Eq. (B10a) gives ~5 \times 10^2 Pa. The text says these are consistent with 'minor differences,' but for a quantitative proposal the normalization should be unambiguous.
  3. [Eq. (20)] There is a typo: 'c_s = 4 km' should read 'c_s = 4 km/s.'
  4. [Appendix B, Eq. (B2)] The symbol \eta is called an 'absorption parameter' in Eq. (B2), but \eta also appears in Eq. (10b) as a scaling parameter. Please define the two uses explicitly to avoid confusion.
  5. [References [54]–[56]] Several references are informal web/TV sources. If possible, replace them with peer-reviewed or citable technical records for the ELFO event and other skyquake reports.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Central acoustic-prediction chain inherits a load-bearing no-attenuation ansatz from a self-cited prior work, but the UFO mechanism and rate estimates retain independent content.

specific steps
  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Appendix B (Eqs. B10a/B10b); main text Eqs. (10a), (11), (13), (16), (17), Table I]
    "As discussed in Ref. [17], the acoustic wave propagating in the rock may have an additional exponential attenuation e^{-X(r)} as a function of r due to sound absorption. ... However, the physics is complicated in solid and hard to evaluate. At least, it is certain that such a sound absorption is weak in liquid for r <~ 100 km. We will assume the sound absorption is weak in solid in this work, as in the original work [17]."

    The paper's detection claim is built on Eq. (10a), P(r) ≈ 3.6e2 Pa at 100 km, which contains no attenuation factor. The only justification offered for dropping e^{-X(r)} is that Ref. [17]—prior work by the same group—also assumed weak absorption. No measurement, simulation, or independent derivation supports kilometer-scale propagation of ~3.5 kHz sound in rock. Because F (11), ΔEk (13), rmax (16), event rate (17), and SNR (26)/Table I all scale from this pressure, the central 'prediction' is not independently derived; it is inherited from a self-cited ansatz. The paper even acknowledges the attenuation is 'hard to evaluate', making the assumption load-bearing rather than validated.

full rationale

The paper constructs a plausible chain from AQN flux (Eq. 6, from standard DM density) to acoustic overpressure (Eq. 10), dust release (Eqs. 11–14), correlated-UFO rate (Eqs. 15–17), and SNR (Eq. 26). Most of this chain is transparent algebra, and the AQN mass/benchmark values are presented as external astrophysical inputs rather than fitted to UFO data. The main circularity concern is concentrated in the acoustic source: the key overpressure at 100 km is obtained by assuming away sound attenuation in rock, with the justification being a citation to the same group's earlier work [17], which made the identical assumption. This is not a statistical fit to the predicted signal, so the paper is not fully circular; nevertheless, the central quantitative result owes its existence to a self-cited, unvalidated ansatz. The 1–10% UFO fraction and the SNR table are derived rather than assumed, but they inherit the same attenuation assumption. I therefore score 4: some self-citation is load-bearing and the central claim would collapse if the acknowledged attenuation were included, yet the UFO-release mechanism, timing correlations, and event-rate scaling are independently formulated.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

7 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new fundamental entities; it applies the pre-existing AQN model to LHC UFOs. Its central claim rests on the assumed validity of that model and on a questionable assumption about sound propagation in rock.

free parameters (7)
  • ⟨M_AQN⟩ = ≈ 100 g
    Average AQN mass, benchmark from astrophysical fits [13] and used in flux and overpressure.
  • α = ≈ 2–2.5
    Power-law index of AQN mass distribution, estimated from percolation model [11].
  • ρ_dust = 3 g cm^-3
    Assumed dust density, typical for silicates.
  • L = 10 µm
    Typical dust particle size used in force estimates.
  • η = ≈ 1
    Rock absorption parameter in Eq. (B2); assumed ~1 based on pure silicon, large uncertainty.
  • ξ = 10^-2
    Annihilation efficiency underground, order-of-magnitude estimate.
  • rate_regular_UFO = ≤ 10/hour
    Observed LHC background rate used to compute SNR.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption AQN model is a valid dark matter candidate
    The entire paper assumes axion quark nuggets exist and constitute dark matter, with properties from prior work [7].
  • domain assumption Acoustic wave scaling P ∝ r^-3/4, ν ∝ r^-1/4
    Meteor infrasound scaling applied to AQN in rock (Appendix B).
  • ad hoc to paper Sound absorption in solid is negligible up to 100 km at ~4 kHz
    Stated in Appendix B; load-bearing but unjustified and likely false.
  • domain assumption Dust release critical force F_rel,crit ≈ 10^-8 N
    Taken from LHC dust studies [5].
  • domain assumption Pressure couples coherently to dust particle (L ≪ λ)
    Used in Eq. (11); reasonable for L=10 µm and λ≈0.4 m.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 17532 in / 10760 out tokens · 92063 ms · 2026-08-03T01:02:44.980921+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Unidentified Falling Objects (UFOs) refer to sporadic beam losses observed during LHC operation. The prevailing explanation is that micrometer-sized dust particles released from the beam screen produce beam losses through interactions with the protons. However, the release mechanism of these particles remains unknown. We propose that roughly $(1-10)$% of UFOs may be caused by axion quark nuggets (AQNs), macroscopic dark matter (DM) candidates with masses of order $(5-1000)\,$g. The AQN model naturally relates the dark- and visible-matter abundances ($\Omega_\mathrm{DM}\sim\Omega_\mathrm{visible}$) and provides a mechanism for generating the baryon-antibaryon asymmetry, with DM composed of both matter and antimatter AQNs. When passing underground within approximately 100km of the LHC, an antimatter AQN generates acoustic waves strong enough to trigger multiple UFO events within $2\,$s. If three correlated UFOs (placed at different locations along the LHC ring) are detected, the signal-to-noise ratio can exceed 5 across the entire allowed AQN mass range for a measurement time of about 360 hours. Practically, the LHC can serve as a large broadband acoustic detector for AQNs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.10562 by Ariel Zhitnitsky, Xunyu Liang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. UFO release mechanism in the LHC. Micrometer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. A dust particle located at the bottom of the beam [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. An AQN-induced UFO burst. This acoustic shock [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. ADAMOS: Axion Daily Modulation Searches for Dark Matter at 20 GHz

    hep-ex 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0

    ADAMOS, a proposed 20 GHz thin-shell haloscope, would reach g_aγγ≈4.4×10^-13 GeV^-1 in 30 days and simultaneously search for daily-modulated and transient axion signals.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 26 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    T. Baer, M. Barnes, B. Goddard, E. B. Holzer, J. M. Jimenez, V. Lechner, V. Mertens, E. Nebot Del Busto, A. Nordt, J. Uythoven, B. Velghe, J. Wenninger, and F. Zimmermann,UFOs in the LHC, Tech. Rep. (2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    background

    We start with an estimate for the overpressure at dis- tancerfrom the AQN for acoustic waves propagating underground, where the LHC ring is located [17]: P(r)∼3.6×10 2 Pa 100 km r 3 4 ⟨MAQN⟩ 100 g 2 3 ,(10a) ν(r)∼3.5 kHz 1 η 3 4 100 km r 1 4 .(10b) For a brief derivation of these formulas, refer to Appendix B. The estimate (10) indicates that the acoustic...

    2017

  3. [3]

    T. Baer, M. J. Barnes, E. Carlier, F. Cerutti, B. Dehn- ing, L. Ducimetiere, A. Ferrari, N. Garrel, A. Ger- ardin, B. Goddard, E. B. Holzer, S. Jackson, J. M. Jimenez, V. Kain, A. Lechner, V. Mertens, M. Misiowiec, R. Moron Ballester, E. Nebot del Busto, L. Norder- haug Drosdal, A. Nordt, J. Uythoven, B. Velghe, V. Vla- choudis, J. Wenninger, C. Zamantzas...

    2012

  4. [4]

    Lindstromet al., Dynamics of the interaction of dust particles with the LHC beam, Phys

    B. Lindstromet al., Dynamics of the interaction of dust particles with the LHC beam, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams 23, 124501 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    Baer,Very Fast Losses of the Circulating LHC Beam, their Mitigation and Machine Protection, Ph.D

    T. Baer,Very Fast Losses of the Circulating LHC Beam, their Mitigation and Machine Protection, Ph.D. thesis, Hamburg University (2013)

    2013

  6. [6]

    P. Belanger,Unidentified falling objects in the large hadron collider: formation, charging mechanisms and dy- namics of dust particulates in a high energy proton accel- erator, Msc thesis, University of British Columbia (2020)

    2020

  7. [7]

    Lechner, B

    A. Lechner, B. Lindstrom, C. Wiesner, D. Wollmann, G. Iadarola, M. Barnes, P. Belanger, R. Schmidt, and V. Rodin, Dust-induced beam losses in the Large Hadron Collider, JACoWIP AC2024, MOPC10 (2024)

    2024

  8. [8]

    A. R. Zhitnitsky, ‘Nonbaryonic’ dark matter as bary- onic colour superconductor, JCAP10, 010 (2003), hep- ph/0202161

    arXiv 2003

  9. [9]

    S. Ge, X. Liang, and A. Zhitnitsky, Cosmological axion and a quark nugget dark matter model, Phys. Rev. D97, 043008 (2018), arXiv:1711.06271 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  10. [10]

    Liang and A

    X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky, Axion field and the quark nugget’s formation at the QCD phase transition, Phys. Rev. D94, 083502 (2016), arXiv:1606.00435 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  11. [11]

    S. Ge, X. Liang, and A. Zhitnitsky, Cosmological C P -odd axion field as the coherent Berry’s phase of the Uni- verse, Phys. Rev. D96, 063514 (2017), arXiv:1702.04354 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  12. [12]

    S. Ge, K. Lawson, and A. Zhitnitsky, Axion quark nugget dark matter model: Size distribution and survival pat- tern, Phys. Rev. D99, 116017 (2019), arXiv:1903.05090 [hep-ph]. 12

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  13. [13]

    V. V. Flambaum and A. R. Zhitnitsky, Primordial Lithium Puzzle and the Axion Quark Nugget Dark Matter Model, Phys. Rev. D99, 023517 (2019), arXiv:1811.01965 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    Sekatchev, X

    M. Sekatchev, X. Liang, F. Majidi, B. Scully, L. Van Waerbeke, and A. Zhitnitsky, The Glow of Ax- ion Quark Nugget Dark Matter: (III) The Mysteries of the Milky Way UV Background, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. Accepted for publication, arXiv:2504.15382 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv

  15. [15]

    Zhitnitsky, Solar Extreme UV radiation and quark nugget dark matter model, JCAP10, 050 (2017), arXiv:1707.03400 [astro-ph.SR]

    A. Zhitnitsky, Solar Extreme UV radiation and quark nugget dark matter model, JCAP10, 050 (2017), arXiv:1707.03400 [astro-ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    N. Raza, L. van Waerbeke, and A. Zhitnitsky, Solar corona heating by axion quark nugget dark matter, Phys. Rev. D98, 103527 (2018), arXiv:1805.01897 [astro- ph.SR]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    S. Ge, M. S. R. Siddiqui, L. Van Waerbeke, and A. Zhit- nitsky, Radio impulsive events in quiet solar corona and Axion Quark Nugget Dark Matter, Phys. Rev. D102, 123021 (2020), arXiv:2009.00004 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  18. [18]

    Budker, V

    D. Budker, V. V. Flambaum, and A. Zhitnitsky, In- frasonic, acoustic and seismic waves produced by the Axion Quark Nuggets, Symmetry14, 459 (2022), arXiv:2003.07363 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    Zhitnitsky, The Mysterious Bursts observed by Tele- scope Array and Axion Quark Nuggets, J

    A. Zhitnitsky, The Mysterious Bursts observed by Tele- scope Array and Axion Quark Nuggets, J. Phys. G48, 065201 (2021), arXiv:2008.04325 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    Liang and A

    X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky, Telescope Array Bursts, Ra- dio Pulses and Axion Quark Nuggets, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 249 (2022), arXiv:2101.01722 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    Zhitnitsky, The Pierre Auger exotic events and ax- ion quark nuggets, J

    A. Zhitnitsky, The Pierre Auger exotic events and ax- ion quark nuggets, J. Phys. G49, 105201 (2022), arXiv:2203.08160 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Liang and A

    X. Liang and A. Zhitnitsky, ANITA anomalous events and axion quark nuggets, Phys. Rev. D106, 063022 (2022), arXiv:2105.01668 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  23. [23]

    Zhitnitsky and M

    A. Zhitnitsky and M. Maroudas, Mysterious anomalies in Earth’s atmosphere and strongly interacting Dark Mat- ter, Symmetry17, 79 (2025), arXiv:2405.04635 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Zioutaset al., Search for anti-quark nuggets via their interaction with the LHC beam (2024), arXiv:2403.05608 [hep-ex]

    K. Zioutaset al., Search for anti-quark nuggets via their interaction with the LHC beam (2024), arXiv:2403.05608 [hep-ex]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  25. [25]

    Lechner, P

    A. Lechner, P. B´ elanger, I. Efthymiopoulos, L. Grob, B. Lindstrom, R. Schmidt, and D. Wollmann, Dust- induced beam losses in the cryogenic arcs of the CERN Large Hadron Collider, Phys. Rev. Accel. Beams25, 041001 (2022), arXiv:2112.11068 [physics.acc-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [26]

    Mirarchi, G

    D. Mirarchi, G. Arduini, M. Giovannozzi, A. Lechner, S. Redaelli, and J. Wenninger, Special Losses during LHC Run 2, in9th LHC Operations Evian Workshop(Geneva, Switzerland, 2019) pp. 213–220

    2019

  27. [27]

    A. Lechneret al., Beam Loss Measurements for Recurring Fast Loss Events During 2017 LHC Operation Possibly Caused by Macroparticles, in9th International Particle Accelerator Conference(2018)

    2017

  28. [28]

    Mether, S

    L. Mether, S. D. Amorim, G. Arduini, X. Buffat, G. Iadarola, A. Lechner, E. M´ etral, D. Mirarchi, G. Ru- molo, and B. Salvant, 6L2: Operation, Observations and Physics Aspects, in8th Evian Workshop on LHC beam operation(2019) pp. 99–105

    2019

  29. [29]

    Myers, The Large Hadron Collider 2008-2013, Int

    S. Myers, The Large Hadron Collider 2008-2013, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28, 1330035 (2013)

    2008

  30. [30]

    Baglin, Other Non-solved Non-conformities across the LHC Ring and Potential Impact on Performance (2015)

    V. Baglin, Other Non-solved Non-conformities across the LHC Ring and Potential Impact on Performance (2015)

    2015

  31. [31]

    Charrondiere, M

    C. Charrondiere, M. Cabon, K. Develle, and M. Guin- chard, Ground vibration monitoring at CERN as part of the international seismic network, in16th Interna- tional Conference on Accelerator and Large Experimental Physics Control Systems(2018) p. THPHA134

    2018

  32. [32]

    R. M. Ballesteret al., Vibration analysis on an lhc kicker prototype for ufos investigation, CERN EDMS Docu- ment (2011)

    2011

  33. [33]

    Tulin and H.-B

    S. Tulin and H.-B. Yu, Dark Matter Self-interactions and Small Scale Structure, Phys. Rept.730, 1 (2018), arXiv:1705.02358 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    Witten, Cosmic separation of phases, Phys

    E. Witten, Cosmic separation of phases, Phys. Rev. D 30, 272 (1984)

    1984

  35. [35]

    Farhi and R

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

    1984

  36. [36]

    De Rujula and S

    A. De Rujula and S. L. Glashow, Nuclearites - A novel form of cosmic radiation, Nature (London)312, 734 (1984)

    1984

  37. [37]

    Zhitnitsky, Axion quark nuggets

    A. Zhitnitsky, Axion quark nuggets. Dark matter and matter–antimatter asymmetry: Theory, observations and future experiments, Mod. Phys. Lett. A36, 2130017 (2021), arXiv:2105.08719 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  38. [38]

    Lawson, X

    K. Lawson, X. Liang, A. Mead, M. S. R. Siddiqui, L. Van Waerbeke, and A. Zhitnitsky, Gravitationally trapped axions on the Earth, Phys. Rev. D100, 043531 (2019), arXiv:1905.00022 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  39. [39]

    Majidi, X

    F. Majidi, X. Liang, L. Van Waerbeke, A. Zhitnitsky, M. Sekatchev, J. S. Sommer, K. Dolag, and T. Castro, The glow of axion quark nugget dark matter. Part I. Large scale structures, JCAP09, 045, arXiv:2406.12122 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  40. [40]

    J. S. Sommeret al., The glow of axion quark nugget dark matter - II. Galaxy clusters, Astron. Astrophys.691, A38 (2024), arXiv:2406.17946 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  41. [41]

    Majidi, X

    F. Majidi, X. Liang, M. Sekatchev, L. Van Waerbeke, and A. Zhitnitsky, The Glow of Axion Quark Nugget Dark Matter: (IV) CMB Spectral and Anisotropy Signa- tures, submitted to J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. (2025), arXiv:2512.05401 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    M. M. Forbes and A. R. Zhitnitsky, WMAP haze: Di- rectly observing dark matter?, Phys. Rev. D78, 083505 (2008), arXiv:0802.3830

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  43. [43]

    Zhitnitsky, Ball Lightning as a profound manifesta- tion of the Dark Matter physics, Universe11, 284 (2025), arXiv:2502.02653 [hep-ph]

    A. Zhitnitsky, Ball Lightning as a profound manifesta- tion of the Dark Matter physics, Universe11, 284 (2025), arXiv:2502.02653 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Schaumann, D

    M. Schaumann, D. Gamba, H. Garcia Morales, R. Corsini, M. Guinchard, L. Scislo, and J. Wenninger, The effect of ground motion on the LHC and HL-LHC beam orbit, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1055, 168495 (2023)

    2023

  45. [45]

    Abbasiet al.(Telescope Array Project), The bursts of high energy events observed by the telescope array surface detector, Phys

    R. Abbasiet al.(Telescope Array Project), The bursts of high energy events observed by the telescope array surface detector, Phys. Lett. A381, 2565 (2017)

    2017

  46. [46]

    Okuda, Telescope array observatory for the high en- ergy radiation induced by lightning, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1181, 012067 (2019)

    T. Okuda, Telescope array observatory for the high en- ergy radiation induced by lightning, Journal of Physics: Conference Series1181, 012067 (2019)

    2019

  47. [47]

    Abreuet al.(Pierre Auger), Downward Terrestrial Gamma-ray Flashes at the Pierre Auger Observatory?, PoSICRC2021, 395 (2021)

    P. Abreuet al.(Pierre Auger), Downward Terrestrial Gamma-ray Flashes at the Pierre Auger Observatory?, PoSICRC2021, 395 (2021)

    2021

  48. [48]

    R. Colalillo, The observation of lightning-related events with the Surface Detector of the Pierre Auger Observa- tory, inEuropean Physical Journal Web of Conferences, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 197 (2019) p. 03003. 13

    2019

  49. [49]

    Colalillo, Peculiar lightning-related events observed by the surface detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory, PoSICRC2017, 314 (2017)

    R. Colalillo, Peculiar lightning-related events observed by the surface detector of the Pierre Auger Observatory, PoSICRC2017, 314 (2017)

    2017

  50. [50]

    P. W. Gorhamet al.(ANITA), Characteristics of Four Upward-pointing Cosmic-ray-like Events Observed with ANITA, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 071101 (2016), arXiv:1603.05218 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [51]

    P. W. Gorhamet al.(ANITA), Observation of an Un- usual Upward-going Cosmic-ray-like Event in the Third Flight of ANITA, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 161102 (2018), arXiv:1803.05088 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  52. [52]

    Zioutas, A

    K. Zioutas, A. Argiriou, H. Fischer, S. Hofmann, M. Maroudas, A. Pappa, and Y. Semertzidis, Strato- spheric temperature anomalies as imprints from the dark universe, Physics of the Dark Universe28, 100497 (2020)

    2020

  53. [53]

    Argiriou, G

    A. Argiriou, G. Cantatore, S. A. Cetin, E. Geor- giopoulou, D. H. H. Hoffmann, S. Hofmann, M. Karuza, A. Kryemadhi, M. Maroudas, A. Mastronikolis, E. L. Matteson, K. ¨Ozbozduman, Y. K. Semertzidis, I. Tsagris, M. Tsagri, G. Tsiledakis, E. L. Valachovic, A. Zhitnit- sky, and K. Zioutas, Novel Dark Matter Signatures, PoS COSMICWISPers2024, 035 (2025)

    2025

  54. [54]

    Skyquake-wikipedia (2025)

    2025

  55. [55]

    Interview with kmvt chief meteorologist brian neudorff (2019)

    2019

  56. [56]

    Nasa comments on alabama skyquake (2017)

    2017

  57. [57]

    Non-meteoric event detected by elfo (2011)

    2011

  58. [58]

    D. O. ReVelle, On meteor-generated infrasound, Journal of Geophysical Research81, 1217 (1976)

    1976

  59. [59]

    E. A. Silber and P. G. Brown, Optical observations of meteors generating infrasound—i: Acoustic signal identi- fication and phenomenology, Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics119, 116 (2014)

    2014

  60. [60]

    E. A. Silber, P. G. Brown, and Z. Krzeminski, Optical ob- servations of meteors generating infrasound: Weak shock theory and validation, Journal of Geophysical Research: Planets120, 413 (2015)

    2015