Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 110 references

Retaining all four current terms in relativistic chiral MHD yields a μ v electric current absent from standard treatments, with consequences for cosmological magnetic fields.

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

2026-08-01 04:23 UTC pith:IRZQA52A

load-bearing objection A careful covariant re-derivation of chiral MHD that surfaces a genuinely new μv term worth taking seriously, though the central instability claim is deferred to a companion and the quasistatic closure needs scrutiny. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.22816 v1 pith:IRZQA52A submitted 2026-07-24 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEhep-phphysics.plasm-ph

Relativistic Chiral MHD with application to the early Universe

Deepen Garg , Jennifer Schober This is my paper
classification astro-ph.CO astro-ph.HEhep-phphysics.plasm-ph PACS 98.80.-k52.30.Cv95.30.Qd
keywords chiral anomalychiral magnetic effectchiral vortical effectcosmological magnetic fieldsrelativistic plasmasmagnetohydrodynamicsearly universecharge-flow instability
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.

The paper derives the complete set of relativistic chiral magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) equations for a plasma of charged fermions in an expanding universe. It shows that once all four contributions to the electric and axial currents are retained, two classes of terms missing from the standard chiral MHD equations appear: charge-density corrections in the evolution equations for the chemical potentials μ and μ5, and an electric current proportional to μ times the bulk velocity v. The μ v term is forced by charge conservation when μ is nonzero, does not require any chirality imbalance, and is argued to drive a new linear instability. The paper also evaluates every coefficient for the radiation-dominated era and gives concrete numbers for the magnetic Reynolds number, the attainable field strength, and the minimum temperature at which the chiral dynamo can operate.

Core claim

The central claim is that the standard chiral MHD equations, as widely used, are incomplete. Writing the electric and axial currents with their full four terms—charge flow, ohmic (CESE), CME (CSE), and CVE (AVE)—and substituting them into covariant conservation equations produces (i) charge-density contributions to the time derivatives of μ and μ5, and (ii) an electric current proportional to μ v that appears in the electric field and hence in the induction equation. This μ v current is a direct consequence of current conservation whenever μ≠0; it is not a chiral effect and survives even after the chirality imbalance μ5 has fully decayed. If correct, the result means prior chiral MHD studies

What carries the argument

The machinery is the full four-term decomposition of the electric and axial currents, Eqs. (14) and (17), combined with the quasistatic Ohm-law closure that eliminates the electric field in favor of B, v, μ, and μ5. The paper first maps the FLRW metric to Minkowski form and rescales fields (6)-(7), (20) so that Hubble expansion survives only in the chirality-flipping rate and the kinematic viscosity. The central identity is the new charge-flow term in Eq. (24), which enters through the electric-field expression (26) and the induction equation (27)/(63). The derivation also yields the charge-density counterparts in Eqs. (31)-(32), which modify the time derivatives of the chemical potentials.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation eliminates the electric field through the quasistatic Ohm-law closure, neglecting the displacement current; if a dynamical electric field is needed in the regimes of interest, the simplified system (61)-(65) is not complete.

What would settle it

Run a two-fluid plasma simulation retaining the displacement current for a relativistic electron-positron plasma with μ≠0, v≠0, μ5=0, and measure the mean current; the claimed term predicts a component ∝ μ v, whereas standard chiral MHD predicts no such term. Absence of that component would falsify the derivation.

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

If this is right

  • A nonzero charge chemical potential μ with a bulk flow generates an electric current even when μ5=0, so the effect persists after chirality is depleted.
  • In the radiation-dominated early Universe, the chiral dynamo can operate down to a minimum temperature T_min ≈ 0.4 GeV/μ5, with magnetic Reynolds number Re_M ≈ 10^5 and rms field B_rms ≈ μ5 in comoving units of 2.29 μG.
  • The new μ v term can exceed the chiral vortical effect and rival the chiral magnetic effect under equipartition, so it should be included in quantitative chiral MHD simulations.
  • The final system (61)-(65) provides a self-contained, scale-independent set of equations with all dimensionless coefficients fixed, ready for direct numerical implementation.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the C-flow instability is as strong as the paper suggests, existing chiral dynamo simulations that omit the μ v term may systematically underestimate field amplification in baryon-asymmetric regimes.
  • The paper's own caveat that the quasistatic closure cannot capture underdamped plasma oscillations implies the saturation level of the C-flow instability and the size of CESE terms are open; retaining a dynamical electric field could change both.
  • The same current structure should apply to other relativistic chiral plasmas—heavy-ion collisions, neutron-star crusts, magnetars—where μ and bulk flows are non-negligible, so the μ v term may be testable outside cosmology.
  • Because C_flow ≈ 26.8 amplifies the new term relative to the CME, even small charge chemical potentials could produce measurable currents; kinetic or two-fluid simulations could check this amplification factor directly.

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

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a covariant derivation of relativistic chiral magnetohrodynamics in an FLRW background. It uses a conformal rescaling to reduce the expanding-universe equations to Minkowski form, then derives a one-fluid system in the subrelativistic, small-chemical-potential limit. Retaining all four contributions to the electric and axial currents leads to two classes of terms absent from common nonrelativistic chiral-MHD formulations: charge-density corrections in the evolution equations for the chemical potentials, and an electric current proportional to the charge chemical potential μ times the bulk velocity. The paper evaluates all coefficients for the radiation-dominated era and gives estimates for the chiral dynamo, including the magnetic Reynolds number, the produced field strength, and the minimum operating temperature. The final simplified system (61)-(65) is proposed for numerical implementation; the charge-flow instability is announced and referred to a companion paper.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a useful systematic reference for chiral-MHD equations, with a consistent set of coefficients and a transparent scaling to Minkowski form. The retained μ v term is physically mandated by charge convection and is indeed absent from standard dynamo-oriented chiral-MHD equations, so the derivation has genuine value for numerical and analytical follow-up work. The paper is also commendably transparent about its approximations, especially the quasistatic electric-field closure. On the other hand, the advertised physical consequence, the C-flow instability, is not demonstrated in this manuscript, and one of the headline numerical estimates contains an internal inconsistency. Both points need to be addressed before the paper can be used as a reliable reference.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. III.B (Eq. 42) and Sec. V] The new C-flow term is promoted to a physical instability by using the quasistatic electric field obtained after dropping ∂τ E in Eq. (6b) and substituting the result into the induction equation [Eqs. (26)-(27), (42), (63)]. The paper itself states that Eq. (42) 'cannot consistently be used to eliminate E′ from this damping term' and, in Sec. V, that the quasistatic closure 'cannot capture the damping of charge fluctuations through underdamped plasma oscillations,' which is relevant to the CESE terms and to the saturation of the C-flow instability. Since the μ v term is an advective charge current, the C-flow instability is a charge-density effect, and its growth rate and length scale must be compared with the plasma frequency and charge-relaxation scale before the simplified system (61)-(65) can be claimed to capture it. No dispersion relation or numerical test is provided here. I reque
  2. [Eqs. (48) and (55)] As printed, Eq. (48) yields ReM ≈ √2 Cω/(C5 η kμ) ≈ 6×10^3 using the values in Eqs. (52)-(54), while Eq. (55) quotes ReM ≈ 10^5. This is not a rounding effect; the quoted 10^5 value is numerically consistent with √(2Cω)/(C5 η kμ), suggesting that Eq. (48) is missing a square root on Cω. Because ReM is used to infer the laminarity of the flow and to motivate the early-Universe dynamo regime (Eq. 57 and the following discussion), the formula and all downstream estimates must be corrected and rechecked.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (59)] The displayed expression T > T_min = m_e/(2π α μ5) gives about 11 MeV/μ5 = 0.011 GeV/μ5, not 0.4 GeV/μ5 as quoted. The numerical value corresponds to 2π m_e/(α μ5). Please verify the prefactor and, if the printed expression is intended, correct it.
  2. [Sec. III.B, around Eq. (42)] The statement that Eq. (42) cannot consistently be used to eliminate E′ from the CESE damping term sits awkwardly with the later use of Eq. (42) in the simplified system (61)-(64). Please clarify the precise role of Eq. (42) in numerical implementation and the conditions under which it is a valid algebraic closure.
  3. [Sec. IV.B, after Eq. (41)] The sentence 'The last term in the square brackets represents an additional dynamo contribution from the CVE...' appears twice verbatim. The duplicate should be removed.
  4. [Notation] The coefficient C_flow is used in Eqs. (41) and (42) before it is defined in Eq. (66). Define it earlier, for example after Eq. (27) or in the notation list.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation is algebraically self-contained; no circular reduction. The only minor caveat is that the C-flow instability is deferred to an in-preparation same-author companion [102], and the quasistatic closure is an acknowledged limitation rather than a circular step.

full rationale

The derivation is not circular. The new charge-flow term proportional to μv is obtained from the assumed relativistic current decomposition (14)-(15), specifically J_flow^α = ρ_el u^α, with ρ_el imported from the externally cited thermodynamic relation (19). Substituting this current into Ampère's law (6b) and neglecting the displacement current yields Eq. (26), and hence the induction equation (27) and the normalized forms (42), (63). The μv term is therefore an algebraic consequence of the explicit input constitutive relation, not a fitted parameter or a re-branded target. Similarly, the μ and μ5 evolution equations (31)-(32), (39)-(40), and (61)-(62) are obtained by inserting the same imported charge-density relations into the conservation laws (21)-(22); the 'charge-density corrections' are the content of the equation-of-state input from Ref. [83], which the paper openly states. The early-Universe estimates use independent inputs (e.g., η from Ref. [39], the standard chiral-plasma growth rate, and helicity conservation) and are consistency estimates, not post-hoc fits. The main caveats are not circular: the C-flow instability is announced via the in-preparation same-author companion [102] rather than derived in this paper, and the paper explicitly acknowledges in Sec. V that the quasistatic Ohm-law closure cannot capture underdamped plasma oscillations, which is relevant to the CESE terms and to saturation of the C-flow instability. These are missing-support/correctness risks, not reductions of the claimed results to the paper's own assumptions. There is one minor self-citation sequence involving [102], but it does not feed back into the derivation, so the circularity score is low.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

No parameter is fitted to a target prediction. The coefficients C5, Cω, Cflow, CCESE are computed from α, T0, ρ0, η, and kμ. The central equations import the current/charge-density relations from Ref. [83] and the anomaly equation; the new μ-v term is an algebraic consequence of retaining J_flow=ρ_el u^α. The only hand-chosen scale is ρ0, a normalization used to define dimensionless fields.

free parameters (1)
  • ρ0 (energy-density normalization) = ρ0 = π²T0^4/(15ℏ³), i.e. √(μ0ρ0)=2.29 μG
    Chosen scale to make B' and E' dimensionless (Eq. 38). It enters C5, B_rms and ReM estimates; the quoted numerical values are tied to this radiation-background normalization, though physical statements should be invariant.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Electric and axial current constitutive relations (Eqs. 15-18) and charge-density relations (Eq. 19) from Ref. [83] are valid for the relativistic chiral plasma
    The derivation starts from these external transport coefficients and does not derive them. The new terms are algebraic consequences of retaining the full four-current structure.
  • domain assumption One-fluid approximation with quasistatic electric field (displacement current neglected)
    Used to convert Ampère's law into the algebraic expression for E (Eq. 26/42). The paper acknowledges this fails for underdamped plasma oscillations.
  • domain assumption Subrelativistic bulk velocity and small chemical potentials (Eqs. 25 and 33)
    Used to drop O(v²) and higher-order μ/μ5 nonlinear terms, yielding the simplified system (39)-(44). The paper argues these hold in the early Universe.
  • domain assumption Rescaled temperature T0 is independent of time and space
    Stated before Eqs. (31)-(32); temperature inhomogeneities and fluctuations are excluded from the derivation.
  • domain assumption Spatially flat FLRW metric and radiation-dominated background
    Used for the early-Universe estimates in Sec. IV (Eq. 49).
  • domain assumption Chirality-flipping rates from Refs. [99,100] and conductivity η=ℏα/(4T0) from Ref. [39]
    Adopted from literature to produce numerical estimates such as ReM, PrM, and Tmin (Eqs. 54, 57, 58).
  • domain assumption Anomalous nonconservation of axial current including the chirality-flipping decay term (Eq. 22)
    Standard QFT anomaly result plus phenomenological decay term; used as input for the μ5 evolution equation.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21341 in / 22892 out tokens · 235477 ms · 2026-08-01T04:23:59.553903+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We present a systematic derivation of the equations of relativistic chiral magnetohydrodynamics (MHD) for a plasma of charged fermions in an expanding universe. Through a combination of a coordinate transformation and a rescaling of the dynamical variables, we bring the full system to the same form as in the Minkowski metric, with the Hubble expansion surviving only in the chirality-flipping rate and the kinematic viscosity. Retaining all four contributions to both the electric and the axial current yields terms absent from standard chiral MHD: charge-density corrections to the evolution equations for the chemical potentials, and an electric current proportional to the charge chemical potential $\mu$ and the bulk velocity. The latter is mandated by current conservation, requires no chirality imbalance, and drives the charge-flow instability studied in a companion paper. For the radiation-dominated era, we evaluate all the coefficients in physical units and use them to estimate the magnetic Reynolds number, the attainable magnetic field strength, and the minimum temperature at which the chiral dynamo can operate. The resulting equations are cast in a form ready for direct numerical implementation.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

110 extracted references · 9 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Schubert and K

    G. Schubert and K. M. Soderlund,Planetary magnetic fields: Observations and models, Phys. Earth Planet. Inter. 187, 92 (2011)

    2011

  2. [2]

    Donati and J

    J.-F. Donati and J. D. Landstreet,Magnetic fields of non- degenerate stars, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.47, 333 (2009)

    2009

  3. [3]

    S. K. Solanki, B. Inhester, and M. Schüssler,The solar magnetic field, Rep. Prog. Phys.69, 563 (2006)

    2006

  4. [4]

    Beck,Magnetic fields in spiral galaxies, Astron

    R. Beck,Magnetic fields in spiral galaxies, Astron. Astro- phys. Rev.24, 4 (2015)

    2015

  5. [5]

    C.L.CarilliandG.B.Taylor,Clustermagneticfields,Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.40, 319 (2002)

    2002

  6. [6]

    Neronov and I

    A. Neronov and I. Vovk,Evidence for strong extragalac- tic magnetic fields from Fermi observations of TeV blazars, Science328, 73 (2010)

    2010

  7. [7]

    P. H. Roberts and E. M. King,On the genesis of the Earth’s magnetism, Rep. Prog. Phys.76, 096801 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Astrophys.52, 251 (2014)

    P.Charbonneau,Solardynamotheory,Annu.Rev.Astron. Astrophys.52, 251 (2014)

    2014

  9. [9]

    Charbonneau,Dynamo models of the solar cycle, Living Rev

    P. Charbonneau,Dynamo models of the solar cycle, Living Rev. Sol. Phys.17, 4 (2020)

    2020

  10. [10]

    Brandenburg and K

    A. Brandenburg and K. Subramanian,Astrophysical mag- netic fields and nonlinear dynamo theory, Phys. Rep.417, 1 (2005)

    2005

  11. [11]

    Durrer and A

    R. Durrer and A. Neronov,Cosmological magnetic fields: their generation, evolution and observation, Astron. Astro- phys. Rev.21, 62 (2013)

    2013

  12. [12]

    Neronov and D

    A. Neronov and D. V. Semikoz,Sensitivity of𝛾-ray tele- scopes for detection of magnetic fields in the intergalactic medium, Phys. Rev. D80, 123012 (2009)

    2009

  13. [13]

    Neronov, D

    A. Neronov, D. Semikoz, M. Kachelriess, S. Ostapchenko, and A. Elyiv,Degree-scale GeV “jets" from active and dead TeV blazars, Astrophys. J. Lett.719, L130 (2010)

    2010

  14. [14]

    Dolag, M

    K. Dolag, M. Kachelrieß, S. Ostapchenko, and R. Tomàs, Lower limit on the strength and filling factor of extragalac- tic magnetic fields, Astrophys. J. Lett.727, L4 (2011)

    2011

  15. [15]

    Tjemsland, M

    J. Tjemsland, M. Meyer, and F. Vazza,Constraining the astrophysical origin of intergalactic magnetic fields, Astro- phys. J.963, 135 (2024)

    2024

  16. [16]

    A. M. Beck, M. Hanasz, H. Lesch, R.-S. Remus, and F. A. Stasyszyn,On the magnetic fields in voids, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett.429, L60 (2013)

    2013

  17. [17]

    D. Garg, R. Durrer, and J. Schober,Are magnetic fields in cosmic voids primordial?(2025), arXiv:2505.14774

    arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Ghosh, A

    O. Ghosh, A. Brandenburg, C. Caprini, A. Neronov, and F. Vazza,Can galactic magnetic fields diffuse into the voids?, Phys. Rev. D113, 023523 (2026)

    2026

  19. [19]

    Seller and G

    K. Seller and G. Sigl,On the contribution of galaxies to the magnetic field in cosmic voids(2025), arXiv:2510.08025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  20. [20]

    D. N. Hosking and A. A. Schekochihin,Cosmic-void ob- servationsreconciledwithprimordialmagnetogenesis,Nat. Commun.14, 7523 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    M. S. Turner and L. M. Widrow,Inflation-produced, large- scale magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D37, 2743 (1988)

    1988

  22. [22]

    J.391, L1 (1992)

    B.Ratra,Cosmological“seed"magneticfieldfrominflation, Astrophys. J.391, L1 (1992)

    1992

  23. [23]

    K. E. Kunze,Large scale magnetic fields from gravitation- ally coupled electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D81, 043526 (2010)

    2010

  24. [24]

    M. M. Anber and L. Sorbo,Naturally inflating on steep potentials through electromagnetic dissipation, Phys. Rev. D81, 043534 (2010)

    2010

  25. [25]

    Barnaby, R

    N. Barnaby, R. Namba, and M. Peloso,Phenomenology of a pseudo-scalar inflaton: naturally large nongaussianity, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.04(2011) 009

    2011

  26. [26]

    Durrer, R

    R. Durrer, R. von Eckardstein, D. Garg, K. Schmitz, O. Sobol, and S. Vilchinskii,Scalar perturbations from in- flation in the presence of gauge fields, Phys. Rev. D110, 043533 (2024)

    2024

  27. [27]

    C. J. Hogan,Magnetohydrodynamic effects of a first-order cosmological phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1488 (1983)

    1983

  28. [28]

    J. M. Quashnock, A. Loeb, and D. N. Spergel,Magnetic field generation during the cosmological QCD phase transi- tion, Astrophys. J. Lett.344, L49 (1989)

    1989

  29. [29]

    Vachaspati,Magnetic fields from cosmological phase transitions, Phys

    T. Vachaspati,Magnetic fields from cosmological phase transitions, Phys. Lett. B265, 258 (1991)

    1991

  30. [30]

    G. Baym, D. Bödeker, and L. McLerran,Magnetic fields produced by phase transition bubbles in the electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D53, 662 (1996)

    1996

  31. [31]

    G. Sigl, A. V. Olinto, and K. Jedamzik,Primordial mag- netic fields from cosmological first order phase transitions, Phys. Rev. D55, 4582 (1997)

    1997

  32. [32]

    Ellis, M

    J. Ellis, M. Fairbairn, M. Lewicki, V. Vaskonen, and 13 A. Wickens,Intergalactic magnetic fields from first-order phase transitions, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.09(2019) 019

    2019

  33. [33]

    R. A. Batista and A. Saveliev,The gamma-ray window to intergalactic magnetism, Universe7, 1 (2021)

    2021

  34. [34]

    Grasso and H

    D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein,Magnetic fields in the early universe, Phys. Rep.348, 163 (2001)

    2001

  35. [35]

    Rep.505, 1 (2011)

    A.Kandus,K.E.Kunze,andC.G.Tsagas,Primordialmag- netogenesis, Phys. Rep.505, 1 (2011)

    2011

  36. [36]

    K.Jedamzik, L.Pogosian,andT.Abel,Hintsofprimordial magnetic fields at recombination and implications for the hubble tension, Nat. Astron. (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    D. G. Yamazaki, M. Kusakabe, T. Kajino, G. J. Mathews, and M.-K. Cheoun,Cosmological solutions to the lithium problem: Big-bang nucleosynthesis with photon cooling,𝑋- particle decay and a primordial magnetic field, Phys. Rev. D90, 023001 (2014)

    2014

  38. [38]

    Roper Pol, C

    A. Roper Pol, C. Caprini, A. Neronov, and D. Semikoz, Gravitational wave signal from primordial magnetic fields in the pulsar timing array frequency band, Phys. Rev. D 105, 123502 (2022)

    2022

  39. [39]

    Caprini, R

    C. Caprini, R. Durrer, and G. Servant,The stochastic grav- itational wave background from turbulence and magnetic fieldsgeneratedbyafirst-orderphasetransition,J.Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.12(2009) 024

    2009

  40. [40]

    Subramanian,The origin, evolution and signatures of primordial magnetic fields, Rep

    K. Subramanian,The origin, evolution and signatures of primordial magnetic fields, Rep. Prog. Phys.79, 76901 (2016)

    2016

  41. [41]

    Vachaspati,Progress on cosmological magnetic fields, Rep

    T. Vachaspati,Progress on cosmological magnetic fields, Rep. Prog. Phys.84, 074901 (2021)

    2021

  42. [42]

    S. A. Maoet al.,Detection of microgauss coherent magnetic fields in a galaxy five billion years ago, Nat. Astron.1, 621 (2017)

    2017

  43. [43]

    J. E. Geachet al.,Polarized thermal emission from dust in a galaxy at redshift 2.6, Nature621, 483 (2023)

    2023

  44. [44]

    de Roo, S

    W. de Roo, S. Vegetti, D. M. Powell, S. W. Ndiritu, R. Pak- mor, and J. P. McKean,A grand-design spiral galaxy with an ordered magnetic field at redshift 2.6 as resolved with ALMAandgravitationallensing,Mon.Not.R.Astron.Soc. Lett.540, L78 (2025)

    2025

  45. [45]

    J. Chen, E. Lopez-Rodriguez, R. J. Ivison, J. E. Geach, S. Dye, X. Liu, and G. Bendo,A kiloparsec-scale ordered magnetic field in a galaxy at𝑧=5.6, Astron. Astrophys. 692, A34 (2024)

    2024

  46. [46]

    Fujita and K

    T. Fujita and K. Kamada,Large-scale magnetic fields can explain the baryon asymmetry of the universe, Phys. Rev. D93, 083520 (2016)

    2016

  47. [47]

    T.Vachaspati,Estimateoftheprimordialmagneticfieldhe- licity, Phys. Rev. Lett.87, 251302 (2001)

    2001

  48. [48]

    Boyer and A

    T. Boyer and A. Neronov,Baryon asymmetry constraints on magnetic field from the Electroweak epoch(2025), arXiv:2504.07937

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    B. A. Campbell, S. Davidson, J. Ellis, and K. A. Olive,On thebaryon,lepton-flavourandright-handedelectronasym- metries of the universe, Phys. Lett. B297, 118 (1992)

    1992

  50. [50]

    D.E.KharzeevandH.-U.Yee,Chiralmagneticwave,Phys. Rev. D83, 085007 (2011)

    2011

  51. [51]

    Burnier, D

    Y. Burnier, D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, and H.-U. Yee,Chi- ral magnetic wave at finite baryon density and the electric quadrupole moment of quark-gluon plasma in heavy ion collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 052303 (2011)

    2011

  52. [52]

    Domcke, K

    V. Domcke, K. Kamada, K. Mukaida, K. Schmitz, and M. Yamada,New constraint on primordial lepton flavor asymmetries, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 261803 (2023)

    2023

  53. [53]

    Gurgenidze, A

    M. Gurgenidze, A. J. Long, A. R. Pol, A. Branden- burg, and T. Kahniashvili,Primordial magnetic field from chiral plasma instability with sourcing(2025), arXiv:2512.09177

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  54. [54]

    Joyce and M

    M. Joyce and M. Shaposhnikov,Primordial magnetic fields, right electrons, and the abelian anomaly, Phys. Rev. Lett.79, 1193 (1997)

    1997

  55. [55]

    A.Boyarsky,J.Fröhlich,andO.Ruchayskiy,Self-consistent evolution of magnetic fields and chiral asymmetry in the early universe, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 031301 (2012)

    2012

  56. [56]

    Rogachevskii, O

    I. Rogachevskii, O. Ruchayskiy, A. Boyarsky, J. Fröhlich, N. Kleeorin, A. Brandenburg, and J. Schober,Laminar and turbulent dynamos in chiral magnetohydrodynamics. I. Theory, Astrophys. J.846, 153 (2017)

    2017

  57. [57]

    Schober, I

    J. Schober, I. Rogachevskii, and A. Brandenburg,Chiral anomaly and dynamos from inhomogeneous chemical po- tential fluctuations, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 065101 (2024)

    2024

  58. [58]

    Schober, I

    J. Schober, I. Rogachevskii, and A. Brandenburg,Ef- ficiency of dynamos from an autonomous generation of chiral asymmetry, Phys. Rev. D110, 043515 (2024), arXiv:2404.07845

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  59. [59]

    Okano and T

    S. Okano and T. Fujita,Chiral gravitational waves pro- duced in a helical magnetogenesis model, J. Cosmol. As- tropart. Phys.03(2021) 026

    2021

  60. [60]

    Brandenburg, E

    A. Brandenburg, E. Clarke, T. Kahniashvili, A. J. Long, and G. Sun,Relic gravitational waves from the chiral plasma instability in the standard cosmological model, Phys. Rev. D109, 043534 (2024)

    2024

  61. [61]

    Kahniashvili, A

    T. Kahniashvili, A. Brandenburg, G. Gogoberidze, S. Mandal, and A. Roper Pol,Circular polarization of gravitational waves from early-Universe helical turbulence, Phys. Rev. Research3, 013193 (2021)

    2021

  62. [62]

    D. E. Kharzeev, J. Liao, and P. Tribedy,Chiral magnetic effect in heavy ion collisions: The present and future, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E33, 2430007 (2024)

    2024

  63. [63]

    Kharzeev, J

    D. Kharzeev, J. Liao, S. Voloshin, and G. Wang,Chiral magnetic and vortical effects in high-energy nuclear col- lisions—A status report, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.88, 1 (2016)

    2016

  64. [64]

    D. T. Son and B. Z. Spivak,Chiral anomaly and classical negative magnetoresistance of Weyl metals, Phys. Rev. B 88, 104412 (2013)

    2013

  65. [65]

    X.Huangetal.,Observationofthechiral-anomaly-induced negative magnetoresistance in 3D Weyl semimetal TaAs, Phys. Rev. X5, 031023 (2015)

    2015

  66. [66]

    Xionget al.,Evidence for the chiral anomaly in the Dirac semimetal Na3Bi, Science350, 413 (2015)

    J. Xionget al.,Evidence for the chiral anomaly in the Dirac semimetal Na3Bi, Science350, 413 (2015)

    2015

  67. [67]

    Liet al.,Chiral magnetic effect in ZrTe5, Nat

    Q. Liet al.,Chiral magnetic effect in ZrTe5, Nat. Phys.12, 550 (2016)

    2016

  68. [68]

    Ohnishi and N

    A. Ohnishi and N. Yamamoto,Magnetars and the chiral plasma instabilities(2014), arXiv:1402.4760

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  69. [69]

    Sigl and N

    G. Sigl and N. Leite,Chiral magnetic effect in protoneu- tron stars and magnetic field spectral evolution, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. (2016) 025

    2016

  70. [70]

    Dehman and J

    C. Dehman and J. A. Pons,On the origin of magnetar fields: Chiral magnetic instability in neutron star crusts (2024), arXiv:2408.05281

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Dehman and J

    C. Dehman and J. A. Pons,Magnetar field dynamics 14 shaped by chiral anomalies and helicity, Phys. Rev. Res. 7, 033231 (2025)

    2025

  72. [72]

    Dehman,Magnetar field dynamics driven by chi- ral anomalies without magnetic helicity(2026), arXiv:2605.08068

    C. Dehman,Magnetar field dynamics driven by chi- ral anomalies without magnetic helicity(2026), arXiv:2605.08068

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  73. [73]

    N.Yamamoto,Chiraltransportofneutrinosinsupernovae: Neutrino-induced fluid helicity and helical plasma instabil- ity, Phys. Rev. D93, 065017 (2016)

    2016

  74. [74]

    D.Grabowska, D.B.Kaplan,andS.Reddy,Roleoftheelec- tron mass in damping chiral plasma instability in super- novaeandneutronstars,Phys.Rev.D91,085035(2015)

    2015

  75. [75]

    Masada, K

    Y. Masada, K. Kotake, T. Takiwaki, and N. Yamamoto, Chiral magnetohydrodynamic turbulence in core-collapse supernovae, Phys. Rev. D98, 083018 (2018)

    2018

  76. [76]

    Matsumoto, N

    J. Matsumoto, N. Yamamoto, and D.-L. Yang,Chiral plasma instability and inverse cascade from nonequilib- rium left-handed neutrinos in core-collapse supernovae, Phys. Rev. D105, 123029 (2022)

    2022

  77. [77]

    Kaminski, C

    M. Kaminski, C. F. Uhlemann, M. Bleicher, and J. Schaffner-Bielich,Anomalous hydrodynamics kicks neu- tron stars, Phys. Lett. B760, 170 (2016)

    2016

  78. [78]

    Charbonneau and A

    J. Charbonneau and A. Zhitnitsky,Topological currents in neutron stars: Kicks, precession, toroidal fields, and mag- netic helicity, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.08(2010) 010

    2010

  79. [79]

    S. L. Adler,Axial-vector vertex in spinor electrodynamics, Phys. Rev.177, 2426 (1969)

    1969

  80. [80]

    J. S. Bell and R. Jackiw,A PCAC puzzle:𝜋0→𝛾𝛾in the 𝜎-model, Nuovo Cim. A60, 47 (1969)

    1969

Showing first 80 references.