Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 72 references

Coherent gravitational waves decay into photon pairs in vacuum; the rate scales with the square of the graviton number and the cube of the frequency.

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 01:44 UTC pith:WMV73VYZ

load-bearing objection Genuinely new N^2 coherent-state rate for GW→γγ, honestly derived; the binary application assumes flat spectral phase, a gap the paper never closes. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24930 v2 pith:WMV73VYZ submitted 2026-07-27 hep-ph gr-qc

Gravitational waves decay in vacuum

Diego Blas , Jos\'e Antonio Oller This is my paper
classification hep-ph gr-qc PACS 04.30.-w04.62.+v95.35.+d
keywords gravitational wavesgraviton coherent statesphoton pair productiongraviton fusionsemiclassical gravityultralight dark matterCMB spectral distortionsquantum gravity EFT
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.

This paper claims that a gravitational wave, described as a coherent state of gravitons, does not simply travel across empty space: it slowly converts into pairs of photons. The decay is suppressed by the square of the gravitational constant, but coherence multiplies the rate by N^2, the square of the number of gravitons in the wave, and high frequencies add another factor of the frequency cubed. A single plane wave produces nothing at leading order; the effect appears for a real, finite-bandwidth wave packet and admits a semiclassical description once the metric is solved to second order. For compact binaries the resulting photon luminosity is small—comparable to a black hole's thermal luminosity of the same total mass—and the stochastic background case is negligible. In models with ultralight dark matter, the same mechanism can produce enormous scalar occupation numbers, and the photon channel gives first constraints from CMB spectral distortions, diffuse backgrounds, and light-nuclei photofission.

Core claim

The central claim is a rate formula: a coherent graviton wave packet containing N gravitons, with central frequency ω_s and bandwidth σ_ω, decays in vacuum into photon pairs at dP/dt = 3 G^2 N^2 ω_s^3 σ_ω^2/(25π), so the photon count grows as N_γ(t) ≈ G^2 N_0^2 6ω_s^3 σ_ω^2 t/(25π). Two features matter here: a single plane-wave graviton field produces no photons at leading order, and the quadratic photon-gravity coupling vanishes classically in vacuum. The process appears because the coherent state is a many-graviton superposition and because the calculation is carried to second order in the metric; the paper shows the quantum result matches a semiclassical treatment whose photon source is t

What carries the argument

The load-bearing objects are the coherent-state representation of gravitational waves (a displaced vacuum whose annihilation-operator eigenvalues are the waveform profile) and the two-graviton to two-photon scattering amplitude. A crucial identity is that the coherent mode does not propagate through the exchange diagram: the two time orderings cancel, leaving only the vacuum propagator. That cancellation is what makes the semiclassical picture valid and turns the naive G^2 suppression into a rate controlled by N^2 and the bandwidth.

Load-bearing premise

The rate assumes that a real gravitational wave behaves as a single coherent wave packet over the chosen frequency bin; if phases are not locked across the wave train, or if the cancellation leaving only the vacuum propagator is incomplete, the N^2 enhancement disappears and the rate falls to the negligible stochastic-background level.

What would settle it

Target a known high-frequency compact binary with a photon search at the predicted GW frequency: if no periodic photon luminosity at the level of Eq. (11) appears within the predicted reaction time, the central claim is falsified. A more indirect test is to bound the photon flux from a cosmological population of GW sources and compare with the exclusion region in the paper's Fig. 3.

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

If this is right

  • Any finite-bandwidth gravitational wave in vacuum is unstable: it converts into photon pairs, depleting the graviton number as N(t) ≈ N_0/(1 + t/τ).
  • The conversion grows steeply with frequency and coherence, so the effect is largest for high-frequency, long, monochromatic wave trains.
  • For compact binaries the predicted photon luminosities are small—around a black hole's thermal luminosity for a binary of the same total mass—and mostly at sub-kHz frequencies.
  • A stochastic gravitational-wave background decays at a rate proportional to the square of its energy density, and this depletion is negligible under current bounds.
  • A pre-existing photon bath such as the CMB stimulates the decay, multiplying the power by (1+2f_γ); in ultralight dark matter models the scalar analogue can reach stellar-scale luminosities.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the rate holds, gravitational-wave observatories might eventually look for correlated photon emission from known sources, not only for the metric oscillation itself.
  • The N^2 enhancement implies that longer, more monochromatic bursts should convert far more efficiently; this is a testable prediction for high-frequency GW sources or future laboratory-scale setups.
  • The same second-order metric mechanism likely produces other light particles, so the formalism could define a general gravitational-wave-to-particles conversion channel whose rates in dense environments are worth mapping.
  • The photon bounds in the paper can be read as target sensitivities: an observed excess in a known GW band would directly test the coherent-state decay hypothesis.

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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims that a gravitational wave described as a coherent graviton state decays in vacuum into photon pairs at a rate dP/dt = 3G^2 N^2 ω_s^3 σ_ω^2/(25π) (Eq. 8), with an N^2 enhancement from coherence. It further claims that this process admits a semiclassical description to second order in the metric, and it applies the rate to compact binary inspirals and mergers, to a stochastic GW background, and to ultralight dark-matter production, deriving first cosmological constraints. The formal derivation uses Skobelev's graviton-fusion amplitudes and coherent-state properties; the application to binaries bins the GW into fractional bandwidth bins and neglects residual inter-bin coherence.

Significance. If Eq. (8) is correct, the paper identifies a qualitatively new quantum-gravity process: every finite-bandwidth coherent GW packet slowly converts to photons, with an N^2 enhancement that is not present for a stochastic background. The semiclassical equivalence at second order in the metric is an interesting and nontrivial statement, and the paper gives the first, albeit very challenging, phenomenological estimates and constraints. No parameters are fitted to make the central result work; the calculation is built from standard EFT machinery and external Skobelev amplitudes. The formal result deserves attention. However, the paper's most visible phenomenological claim—the compact-binary photon luminosities and the 'genuine window' of Fig. 2—rests on a flat-phase, top-hat coherent-state profile that is not justified for real chirping binaries.

major comments (3)
  1. [§Application to binary systems, Eq. (7)/(S6), Fig. 2] The derivation of Eq. (8) assumes f_s(k) is real and top-hat in |k|, with no spectral phase. For an inspiraling binary, the coherent-state amplitude carries a stationary-phase chirp with ψ''(ω_s) ≈ 1/α, where α = dω/dt. Within one ε-bin of width εω_s and duration t_ε, the phase combination in the four-field integral of Eq. (S6) varies by ΔΨ ≈ εω_s t_ε/2 = π n ε, with n the number of cycles in the bin. For quasi-circular inspiral, n ≫ 1/(2π ε) for essentially all bins away from the final cycles, so the integrals become Fresnel integrals and the rate is suppressed by O((εω_s t_ε)^{-1}) relative to the flat-phase result. The paper's binning procedure explicitly neglects only inter-bin coherence ('residual coherence between bins is neglected'); it does not remove this intra-bin phase curvature. Thus the compact-binary luminosities and the 'genuine window' in Fig. 2 are not supported by the c
  2. [SM §SB, Eq. (S6) to Eq. (8)] The central integral leading to Eq. (8) is not shown. The text says the integrations are 'straightforward', but Eq. (S6) involves nontrivial six-dimensional integrals over k, k', and K, plus a photon angular integral, and the final prefactor 3/(25π) controls every rate and bound in the paper. This is not a cosmetic omission: the prefactor is the main quantitative output. The SM should display the key steps of the integration, or provide a reproducible ancillary derivation, so that the result can be verified. As it stands, the central formula is asserted rather than demonstrated.
  3. [Definition of N in Eq. (8), text after Eq. (5)] The normalization Θ = sqrt(2π^2 N/(ω_s σ_ω)) and the mode normalization in Eq. (2) give ∫ d^3k/(2π)^3 2k |f|^2 = N/2 per polarization. The text suppresses the polarization label, so if N in Eq. (8) is the total graviton number summed over the two helicities, this is consistent, but the convention should be stated explicitly. If N is instead meant per polarization, Eq. (8) and all derived rates are off by a factor of 4. This ambiguity should be resolved in the main text.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (13)] The comparison with Hawking luminosity uses λ and ℓ without defining λ; r_m is defined earlier, but the combination λℓ/(r_s r_m) would benefit from a sentence explaining which length scales are being compared.
  2. [§Stochastic gravitational-wave background, Eq. (14)] The angular average leading to Eq. (14) is stated in one sentence. Since this rate is later compared with the coherent-state rate, a short derivation in the SM would be useful.
  3. [§Application to binary systems, paragraph after Fig. 2] The phrase 'the four terms involved by squaring the modulus of Eq. (7)' is cryptic. Clarify which four terms are meant and how they 'increase the decoherence as ε grows'.
  4. [SM §SD, Eq. (S11)] The scalar rate formula is complex; a brief check of the m≪ω_s and resonant limits against the simplified expressions quoted in the main text would aid readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: Eq. (8) is computed from external Skobelev amplitudes and standard coherent-state identities; the paper's self-citations are for conventions and context, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central claim, dP/dt = 3G^2 N^2 omega_s^3 sigma_omega^2/(25 pi), is derived rather than assumed. The paper starts from the external Skobelev two-graviton-to-two-photon amplitudes (Eq. (6), Ref. [32]) and the standard coherent-state replacement a(k)|f> = f_s(k)|f> (Eq. (4)). SM SB shows explicitly the integrations leading to Eq. (8), with no parameter fitted to the target photon rate. SM SA independently proves the cancellation of the intermediate coherent-graviton propagator contribution using a delta-function-forced on-shell condition and helicity conservation; this is an internal derivation, not a citation. The self-citations that appear in the derivation chain are [29] for conventions and [35] for the side remark on multiphoton phase-space suppression; neither is load-bearing, and no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work. The narrow-band top-hat profile f_s is an explicit modeling assumption ('For convenience, we approximate the previous profile by a narrow-band top-hat distribution'), not an output or a fitted result. The skeptical concern about intra-bin spectral-phase curvature in real binary chirps is a validity/approximation limitation, not circularity. The Fig. 3 constraints use the derived rate together with external astrophysical backgrounds, so they are also not circular. In sum, no step reduces to its own input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No constants are fitted to data. The rate formula depends on source parameters (N, ω_s, σ_ω) which are physical inputs; the only hand-chosen number in the applications is the bin fraction ε=0.1. The derivation relies on standard EFT/coherent-state methods and on external amplitudes (Skobelev, Gross-Jackiw).

free parameters (4)
  • N_0 (average graviton number) = source-dependent; set by E_rel/ω_s
    Central rate scales as N^2; treated as input from a classical source model, not fitted to the result.
  • σ_ω (wave-packet bandwidth) = source-dependent; ~1/t_ϵ for inspiral bins
    Rate ∝ σ_ω^2; chosen for each source class and bin.
  • ε (fractional bandwidth bin) = 0.1 for inspiral
    Chosen by hand to define coherence bins in Fig. 2; affects predicted luminosity and allowed regions.
  • ULDM parameters (m_DM, v, x_MW) = examples: m_DM=10^-21 eV, v=10^-3, x_MW=10^5
    Illustrative values from ULDM literature used for the scalar-decay rate estimates, not fitted.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption General relativity is an effective field theory valid below the Planck scale, with linearized couplings to the Standard Model.
    Used throughout; cites Donoghue et al. [19] and Burgess [20].
  • standard math A classical source coupled linearly to gravity produces a coherent graviton state (displacement operator state).
    Eqs. (1)-(3); standard QFT result.
  • domain assumption The Skobelev (1975) amplitudes for gg→γγ in Eq. (6) are correct.
    Taken from Ref. [32]; central input to Eq. (7).
  • domain assumption Narrow-band limit σ_ω≪ω_s and replacement of the energy-conserving delta by 2πδ(0)→T≈1/σ_ω.
    Used to derive Eq. (8) in SM §SB; requires τ≪δt.
  • standard math The Feynman propagator relation G_F=G_ret-2πi θ(-k0)δ(k^2), with coherent terms vanishing on shell, establishes equivalence to second-order semiclassical photon creation.
    Stated after Eq. (7) and SM §SA; not explicitly derived for the metric.
  • domain assumption Cosmological bound calculations use external cascade spectra, photofission cross sections, and COBE/FIRAS limits.
    SM §SF and Refs. [57-60]; affect Fig. 3.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20083 in / 18068 out tokens · 184045 ms · 2026-08-03T01:44:08.105407+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We show that gravitational waves (GW), treated as coherent graviton states, decay into photon pairs in vacuum. The process, even if suppressed by $G^2$, is lifted by two effects combined: the expected factor of the graviton number squared, $N^2$, and the coherence of the wave. We perform the calculation describing both gravity and the photons as quantized fields, though we show that the effect admits a semiclassical description once the metric is solved to second order. We estimate the resulting rates for compact binaries and a stochastic background, including the effect from stimulated decay to the cosmic microwave background (CMB). In theories with light degrees of freedom, an analogous decay into them is also possible, and more relevant for ultralight dark matter, as it can entail huge occupation numbers. We derive first constraints on cosmological GW sources by the corresponding injection of photons from CMB spectral distortions, extragalactic backgrounds, and light-nuclei photofission. In summary, the decay of GWs into photons offers a new (challenging) handle on the detection of GW sources, and represents a new mechanism to generate other particles across cosmic history.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24930 by Diego Blas, Jos\'e Antonio Oller.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Feynman diagrams for the scattering amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Photon luminosity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Log–log plot showing the upper bounds on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Log–log plot showing the upper bounds on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

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

72 extracted references · 38 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbott et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger.Phys. Rev. Lett., 116(6):061102, 2016.arXiv:1602.03837,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.116.061102

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    A. G. Abac et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from the Coalescence of a 2.5–4.5 M ⊙ Compact Ob- ject and a Neutron Star.Astrophys. J. Lett., 970(2):L34, 2024.arXiv:2404.04248,doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ ad5beb

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background.As- trophys

    Gabriella Agazie et al. The NANOGrav 15 yr Data Set: Evidence for a Gravitational-wave Background.As- trophys. J. Lett., 951(1):L8, 2023.arXiv:2306.16213, doi:10.3847/2041-8213/acdac6. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    K. G. Arun et al. New horizons for fundamental physics with LISA.Living Rev. Rel., 25(1):4, 2022.arXiv:2205. 01597,doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00036-9

    doi:10.1007/s41114-022-00036-9 2022

  5. [5]

    Challenges and opportunities of gravitational-wave searches above 10 kHz.Living Rev

    Nancy Aggarwal et al. Challenges and opportunities of gravitational-wave searches above 10 kHz.Living Rev. Rel., 28(1):10, 2025.arXiv:2501.11723,doi:10.1007/ s41114-025-00060-5

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    GUEST: Gravitational Universe Explo- ration with Satellite Tracking

    Diego Blas et al. GUEST: Gravitational Universe Explo- ration with Satellite Tracking. A passive satellite laser- ranging mission for the dark gravitational Universe. 7 2026.arXiv:2607.18390

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  7. [7]

    Figueroa

    Chiara Caprini and Daniel G. Figueroa. Cosmological backgrounds of gravitational waves.Class. Quant. Grav., 35(16):163001, 2018.arXiv:1801.04268,doi:10.1088/ 1361-6382/aac608

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Is a graviton detectable?Int

    Freeman Dyson. Is a graviton detectable?Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, 28:1330041, 2013.doi:10.1142/ S0217751X1330041X

    2013

  9. [9]

    Quantum Mechanics of Gravitational Waves.Phys

    Maulik Parikh, Frank Wilczek, and George Zahariade. Quantum Mechanics of Gravitational Waves.Phys. Rev. Lett., 127(8):081602, 2021.arXiv:2010.08205,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevLett.127.081602

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  10. [10]

    Manikandan, Thomas Bei- tel, and Igor Pikovski

    Germain Tobar, Sreenath K. Manikandan, Thomas Bei- tel, and Igor Pikovski. Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing.Nature Commun., 15(1):7229, 2024. arXiv:2308.15440,doi:10.1038/s41467-024-51420-8

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  11. [11]

    Daniel Carney, Valerie Domcke, and Nicholas L. Rodd. Graviton detection and the quantization of gravity.Phys. Rev. D, 109(4):044009, 2024.arXiv:2308.12988,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.044009

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Coher- ent State Description of Gravitational Waves from Bi- nary Black Holes.Phys

    Sugumi Kanno, Jiro Soda, and Akira Taniguchi. Coher- ent State Description of Gravitational Waves from Bi- nary Black Holes.Phys. Rev. Lett., 136(6):061404, 2026. arXiv:2508.17947,doi:10.1103/kv1t-j27m

    arXiv 2026

  13. [13]

    Consistent canonical quantization of gravity: Recovery of classical GR from BRST-invariant coherent states

    Lasha Berezhiani, Gia Dvali, and Otari Sakhelashvili. Consistent canonical quantization of gravity: Recovery of classical GR from BRST-invariant coherent states. Phys. Rev. D, 113(12):125032, 2026.arXiv:2409.18777, doi:10.1103/652w-ym62

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  14. [14]

    Absorption of Gravitational Waves from Distant Sources.Phys

    Raphael Flauger and Steven Weinberg. Absorption of Gravitational Waves from Distant Sources.Phys. Rev. D, 99(12):123030, 2019.arXiv:1906.04853,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.99.123030

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  15. [15]

    Wen-Yuan Ai, Sebastian A. R. Ellis, and Josef Pradler. Soft Gravitons, Hard Truths: Infrared Safety of Particle Processes in a Gravitational-Wave Background. 10 2025. arXiv:2510.27690

    arXiv 2025

  16. [16]

    R. F. Sawyer. Quantum break in high intensity gravitational wave interactions.Phys. Rev. Lett., 124(10):101301, 2020.arXiv:1910.08835,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.124.101301

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  17. [17]

    John W. Moffat. Stochastic fluctuations and Brown- ian motion detection of gravitons.Eur. Phys. J. C, 85(2):166, 2025.arXiv:2409.02948,doi:10.1140/epjc/ s10052-025-13882-y

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Noah M. MacKay. Effective Field Theory Calculation of LIGO-like Compton Scattering. 12 2024.arXiv:2412. 20169

    2024

  19. [19]

    Donoghue, Mikhail M

    John F. Donoghue, Mikhail M. Ivanov, and Andrey Shk- erin. EPFL Lectures on General Relativity as a Quantum Field Theory. 2 2017.arXiv:1702.00319

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  20. [20]

    C. P. Burgess. Quantum gravity in everyday life: General relativity as an effective field theory.Living Rev. Rel., 7:5–56, 2004.arXiv:gr-qc/0311082,doi:10.12942/ lrr-2004-5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  21. [21]

    Schwinger

    Julian S. Schwinger. On gauge invariance and vac- uum polarization.Phys. Rev., 82:664–679, 1951.doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.82.664

    doi:10.1103/physrev.82.664 1951

  22. [22]

    G. W. Gibbons. Quantized Fields Propagating in Plane Wave Space-Times.Commun. Math. Phys., 45:191–202, 1975.doi:10.1007/BF01629249

    doi:10.1007/bf01629249 1975

  23. [23]

    Plane waves do not polarize the vacuum

    Stanley Deser. Plane waves do not polarize the vacuum. J. Phys. A, 8:1972, 1975.doi:10.1088/0305-4470/8/ 12/012

    doi:10.1088/0305-4470/8/ 1972

  24. [24]

    Dunne.Heisenberg-Euler effective La- grangians: Basics and extensions, pages 445–522

    Gerald V. Dunne.Heisenberg-Euler effective La- grangians: Basics and extensions, pages 445–522. 6 2004. arXiv:hep-th/0406216,doi:10.1142/9789812775344_ 0014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  25. [25]

    Quest for particles production in the plane gravitational wave spacetime.Eur

    Nail Khusnutdinov. Quest for particles production in the plane gravitational wave spacetime.Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 141(5):532, 2026.arXiv:2508.11558,doi:10. 1140/epjp/s13360-026-07725-2

    arXiv 2026

  26. [26]

    Scattering of quan- tum particles by gravitational plane waves.Phys

    Jaume Garriga and Enric Verdaguer. Scattering of quan- tum particles by gravitational plane waves.Phys. Rev. D, 43:391–401, 1991.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.43.391

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.43.391 1991

  27. [27]

    Quantum fields interacting with colliding plane waves: particle cre- ation.Nucl

    Miquel Dorca and Enric Verdaguer. Quantum fields interacting with colliding plane waves: particle cre- ation.Nucl. Phys. B, 403:770–808, 1993.doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(93)90370-5

    1993

  28. [28]

    Particle Production from Inhomogeneities: the off-shell side of gravitational waves

    Michele Redi and Andrea Tesi. Particle Production from Inhomogeneities: the off-shell side of gravitational waves. 6 2026.arXiv:2606.28297

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  29. [29]

    Unitarization of infinite-range forces: graviton- graviton scattering.JHEP, 08:266, 2022.arXiv:2010

    Diego Blas, Jorge Martin Camalich, and Jose Antonio Oller. Unitarization of infinite-range forces: graviton- graviton scattering.JHEP, 08:266, 2022.arXiv:2010. 12459,doi:10.1007/JHEP08(2022)266

    doi:10.1007/jhep08(2022)266 2022

  30. [30]

    Backreaction on back- ground fields: A coherent state approach.Phys

    Anton Ilderton and Daniel Seipt. Backreaction on back- ground fields: A coherent state approach.Phys. Rev. D, 97(1):016007, 2018.arXiv:1709.10085,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.97.016007

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  31. [31]

    Itzykson and J

    C. Itzykson and J. B. Zuber.Quantum Field Theory. In- ternational Series In Pure and Applied Physics. McGraw- Hill, New York, 1980

    1980

  32. [32]

    DDyqvSwFm5VOnpRjfdC0RtjhVTQ=

    (see also [33, 34]). The corresponding Feynman di- agrams are shown in Fig. 1, and the fusion amplitude Aλ1λ2µ1µ2 (k1, k2, p1, p2) reads A++++ =A −−−− = 8πG t2 s ,(6) A++−− =A −−++ = 8πG u2 s , where s = (k 1 +k 2)2, t = (k 1 −q 1)2, and u = (k 1 −q 2)2 are the usual Mandelstam variables. The initial gravi- tons can also scatter into gravitons outside the...

    2020

  33. [33]

    V. V. Skobelev. Graviton-photon interaction.Sov. Phys. J., 18:62–65, 1975.doi:10.1007/BF00889810

    doi:10.1007/bf00889810 1975

  34. [34]

    Grisaru, P

    Marcus T. Grisaru, P. van Nieuwenhuizen, and C. C. Wu. Gravitational Born Amplitudes and Kinematical Constraints.Phys. Rev. D, 12:397, 1975.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.12.397

    1975

  35. [35]

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, Barry R. Holstein, Ludovic Plant´ e, and Pierre Vanhove. Graviton-Photon Scatter- ing.Phys. Rev. D, 91(6):064008, 2015.arXiv:1410.4148, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.064008

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  36. [36]

    Llanes-Estrada, Jos´ e Antonio Oller, and Alexandre Salas-Bern´ ardez

    Juan Escudero-Pedrosa, Felipe J. Llanes-Estrada, Jos´ e Antonio Oller, and Alexandre Salas-Bern´ ardez. As- sessment of systematic theory uncertainties in IAM uni- tarization.Nucl. Part. Phys. Proc., 312-317:82–86, 2021. arXiv:2012.02616,doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2021. 05.022

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  37. [37]

    Effects of orbital precession on hyperbolic encounters.Phys

    Marienza Caldarola, Sachiko Kuroyanagi, Savvas Nesseris, and Juan Garcia-Bellido. Effects of orbital precession on hyperbolic encounters.Phys. Rev. D, 109(6):064001, 2024.arXiv:2307.00915,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevD.109.064001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  38. [38]

    Michele Maggiore.Gravitational Waves. Vol. 1: Theory and Experiments. Oxford University Press, 2007.doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198570745.001.0001. 8

    arXiv 2007

  39. [39]

    Stella Koch Ocker and James M. Cordes. NE2025: An Updated Electron Density Model for the Galactic Inter- stellar Medium.Astrophys. J., 1002(1):3, 2026.arXiv: 2602.11838,doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae5825

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Cook, and Frans Pretorius

    Alessandra Buonanno, Gregory B. Cook, and Frans Pretorius. Inspiral, merger and ring-down of equal- mass black-hole binaries.Phys. Rev. D, 75:124018, 2007.arXiv:gr-qc/0610122,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 75.124018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  41. [41]

    Flanagan and Scott A

    Eanna E. Flanagan and Scott A. Hughes. Measur- ing gravitational waves from binary black hole coales- cences: 1. Signal-to-noise for inspiral, merger, and ring- down.Phys. Rev. D, 57:4535–4565, 1998.arXiv:gr-qc/ 9701039,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.57.4535

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.57.4535 1998

  42. [42]

    Observational Black Hole Spectroscopy: A time-domain multimode analysis of GW150914.Phys

    Gregorio Carullo, Walter Del Pozzo, and John Veitch. Observational Black Hole Spectroscopy: A time-domain multimode analysis of GW150914.Phys. Rev. D, 99(12):123029, 2019. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 100, 089903 (2019)].arXiv:1902.07527,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99. 123029

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  43. [43]

    Aghanim, et al

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, et al. Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters.Astronomy & As- trophysics, 641:A6, 2020.arXiv:1807.06209,doi:10. 1051/0004-6361/201833910

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    TASI lectures on extra dimensions and branes

    Csaba Csaki. TASI lectures on extra dimensions and branes. InTheoretical Advanced Study Institute in Ele- mentary Particle Physics (TASI 2002): Particle Physics and Cosmology: The Quest for Physics Beyond the Stan- dard Model(s), pages 605–698, 4 2004.arXiv:hep-ph/ 0404096

    2002

  45. [45]

    Black Hole Bound on the Number of Species and Quantum Gravity at LHC

    Gia Dvali and Michele Redi. Black Hole Bound on the Number of Species and Quantum Gravity at LHC. Phys. Rev. D, 77:045027, 2008.arXiv:0710.4344,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.77.045027

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  46. [46]

    Cold and fuzzy dark matter.Phys

    Wayne Hu, Rennan Barkana, and Andrei Gruzinov. Cold and fuzzy dark matter.Phys. Rev. Lett., 85:1158– 1161, 2000.arXiv:astro-ph/0003365,doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.85.1158

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  47. [47]

    Ostriker, Scott Tremaine, and Ed- ward Witten

    Lam Hui, Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Scott Tremaine, and Ed- ward Witten. Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter.Phys. Rev. D, 95(4):043541, 2017.arXiv: 1610.08297,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.043541

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  48. [48]

    J. I. Read. The Local Dark Matter Density.J. Phys. G, 41:063101, 2014.arXiv:1404.1938,doi:10.1088/ 0954-3899/41/6/063101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  49. [49]

    Gross and Roman Jackiw

    David J. Gross and Roman Jackiw. Low-Energy Theo- rem for Graviton Scattering.Phys. Rev., 166:1287–1292, 1968.doi:10.1103/PhysRev.166.1287

    doi:10.1103/physrev.166.1287 1968

  50. [50]

    Rodd, and Lian-Tao Wang

    Dhong Yeon Cheong, Nicholas L. Rodd, and Lian-Tao Wang. Quantum description of wave dark matter.Phys. Rev. D, 111(1):015028, 2025.arXiv:2408.04696,doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.015028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Foster, Yonatan Kahn, Rachel Nguyen, Nicholas L

    Joshua W. Foster, Yonatan Kahn, Rachel Nguyen, Nicholas L. Rodd, and Benjamin R. Safdi. Dark Matter Interferometry.Phys. Rev. D, 103(7):076018, 2021.arXiv:2009.14201,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103. 076018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Ya. B. Zeldovich and R. A. Sunyaev. The Interac- tion of Matter and Radiation in a Hot-Model Universe. Astrophys. Space Sci., 4:301–316, 1969.doi:10.1007/ BF00661821

    1969

  53. [53]

    Future Steps in Cosmology using Spectral Distortions of the Cosmic Microwave Background.Proc

    Jens Chluba. Future Steps in Cosmology using Spectral Distortions of the Cosmic Microwave Background.Proc. Int. Sch. Phys. Fermi, 200:265–309, 2020.arXiv:1806. 02915,doi:10.3254/ENFI200012

    doi:10.3254/enfi200012 2020

  54. [54]

    Chluba et al

    J. Chluba et al. New horizons in cosmology with spec- tral distortions of the cosmic microwave background.Ex- per. Astron., 51(3):1515–1554, 2021.arXiv:1909.01593, doi:10.1007/s10686-021-09729-5

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  55. [55]

    New constraints on a light spinless particle coupled to photons.Phys

    Eduard Masso and Ramon Toldra. New constraints on a light spinless particle coupled to photons.Phys. Rev. D, 55:7967–7969, 1997.arXiv:hep-ph/9702275,doi:10. 1103/PhysRevD.55.7967

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  56. [56]

    A cosmic UV/X-ray background model update.Mon

    Claude-Andr´ e Faucher-Gigu` ere. A cosmic UV/X-ray background model update.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 493(2):1614–1632, 2020.arXiv:1903.08657,doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa302

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  57. [57]

    Ackermann et al

    M. Ackermann et al. The spectrum of isotropic dif- fuse gamma-ray emission between 100 MeV and 820 GeV.Astrophys. J., 799:86, 2015.arXiv:1410.3696, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/799/1/86

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  58. [58]

    Ellis, G

    John R. Ellis, G. B. Gelmini, Jorge L. Lopez, Dim- itri V. Nanopoulos, and Subir Sarkar. Astrophysi- cal constraints on massive unstable neutral relic parti- cles.Nucl. Phys. B, 373:399–437, 1992.doi:10.1016/ 0550-3213(92)90438-H

    1992

  59. [59]

    Big bang nucleosynthesis and physics be- yond the standard model.Rept

    Subir Sarkar. Big bang nucleosynthesis and physics be- yond the standard model.Rept. Prog. Phys., 59:1493– 1610, 1996.arXiv:hep-ph/9602260,doi:10.1088/ 0034-4885/59/12/001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  60. [60]

    Green’s function of the cosmological ther- malization problem – II

    Jens Chluba. Green’s function of the cosmological ther- malization problem – II. Effect of photon injection and constraints.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 454(4):4182– 4196, 2015.arXiv:1506.06582,doi:10.1093/mnras/ stv2243

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  61. [61]

    D. J. Fixsen, E. S. Cheng, J. M. Gales, John C. Mather, R. A. Shafer, and E. L. Wright. The Cosmic Microwave Background spectrum from the full COBE FIRAS data set.Astrophys. J., 473:576, 1996.arXiv:astro-ph/ 9605054,doi:10.1086/178173

    doi:10.1086/178173 1996

  62. [62]

    P. J. E. Peebles.Principles of Physical Cosmology. Princeton University Press, 2020

    2020

  63. [63]

    Galactic rotation curves versus ultralight dark matter: Implications of the soliton-host halo re- lation.Phys

    Nitsan Bar, Diego Blas, Kfir Blum, and Sergey Sibiryakov. Galactic rotation curves versus ultralight dark matter: Implications of the soliton-host halo re- lation.Phys. Rev. D, 98(8):083027, 2018.arXiv:1805. 00122,doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083027

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.083027 2018

  64. [64]

    Kolb and Andrew J

    Edward W. Kolb and Andrew J. Long. Cosmologi- cal gravitational particle production and its implications for cosmological relics.Rev. Mod. Phys., 96(4):045005, 2024.arXiv:2312.09042,doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.96. 045005

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    Roy J. Glauber. Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field.Phys. Rev., 131:2766–2788, 1963.doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.131.2766

    doi:10.1103/physrev.131.2766 1963

  66. [66]

    E. C. G. Sudarshan. Equivalence of semiclassical and quantum mechanical descriptions of statistical light beams.Phys. Rev. Lett., 10:277–279, 1963.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.10.277

    1963

  67. [67]

    Ellis, Dimitri V

    John R. Ellis, Dimitri V. Nanopoulos, and Subir Sarkar. The Cosmology of Decaying Gravitinos.Nucl. Phys. B, 259:175–188, 1985.doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85) 90306-2

    doi:10.1016/0550-3213(85 1985

  68. [68]

    Cosmological Constraints on the Lifetime of Massive Particles.Astrophys

    David Lindley. Cosmological Constraints on the Lifetime of Massive Particles.Astrophys. J., 294:1–8, 1985.doi: 10.1086/163267

    doi:10.1086/163267 1985

  69. [69]

    J. M. Laget. Electromagnetic Properties of the pi n n System. 3. The gamma d –>p n Reaction.Nucl. Phys. 9 A, 312:265–290, 1978.doi:10.1016/0375-9474(78) 90590-0

    doi:10.1016/0375-9474(78 1978

  70. [70]

    Sofia Quaglioni, Winfried Leidemann, Giuseppina Orlan- dini, Nir Barnea, and Victor D. Efros. Two body pho- todisintegration of He-4 with full final state interaction. Phys. Rev. C, 69:044002, 2004.arXiv:nucl-th/0311068, doi:10.1103/PhysRevC.69.044002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  71. [71]

    Gari and H

    M. Gari and H. Hebach. Photonuclear reactions at intermediate energies (40 MeV⩽E γ⩽400 MeV). Physics Reports, 72(1):1–55, June 1981.doi:10.1016/ 0370-1573(81)90008-9

    1981

  72. [72]

    S. M. Doran et al. The 4 He(γ, 2N) reaction measured with tagged photons.Nucl. Phys. A, 559:347–367, 1993. doi:10.1016/0375-9474(93)90158-T. SUPPLEMENT AL MA TERIAL SA. Propagator of the coherent state We show that the coherent-state mode does not propagate in diagram 2) of Fig. 1, the only diagram with a graviton propagator connecting the two verticesxan...

    doi:10.1016/0375-9474(93)90158-t 1993