Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

JWST observations constrain the time evolution of fine structure constants and dark energy - electromagnetic coupling

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read JWST spectra of two galaxies at redshifts 7.19 and 8.47 show the fine-structure constant has not evolved and tighten the dark energy-electromagnetic coupling to ζ ≤ 3.92×10^-7.

desk verdict Two plausible high-redshift α measurements, but the headline ζ bound is unsupported by the paper's own posterior and rests on an unphysical phantom CPL model. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.08774 v1 pith:5FO3UCGX submitted 2024-11-13 astro-ph.CO astro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE

Ze-Fan Wang , Lei Lei , Lei Feng , Yi-Zhong Fan This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.COastro-ph.GAastro-ph.HE PACS 98.80.-k95.36.+x
keywords fine-structureconstant[OIII]doubletJWSTNIRSpechigh-redshiftgalaxiesdarkenergy-electromagneticcouplingCPLparametrizationcosmologicalvariationofconstants
topics Dark Energy
open problems Dark Energy
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tests whether the fine-structure constant α changes with cosmic time by measuring the wavelength separation of the [O III] λλ4959,5007 doublet in two JWST galaxies at redshifts 7.19 and 8.47. The inferred deviations, Δα/α = (0.$44^{{+8.4}}$_{-8.3} ± 1.7) × $10^{-4}$ and (-10.$0^{{+18}}$_{-18} ± 1.5) × $10^{-4}$, are both consistent with zero. Combined with lower-redshift measurements, the data give (1/α)dα/dt = 0.$30^{{+4.5}}$_{-4.5} × $10^{-17}$ $yr^{-1}$, meaning no cosmic drift of α is detected. The same dataset, modelled as a scalar dark-energy field coupled to electromagnetism through a gauge kinetic function with a CPL equation of state, yields ζ ≤ 3.92 × $10^{-7}$ at 95% confidence, the most stringent bound the paper reports. If correct, this rules out any large change in the strength of electromagnetism back to when the universe was under a billion years old.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the [O III] λλ4959,5007 emission-line doublet, whose rest-frame wavelength separation scales as α² in the non-relativistic approximation. Comparing the measured separation ratio R(z)=Δλ(z)/λ̄(z) with the laboratory value R(0)=4.80967×$10^{-3}$ via Δα/α = $\sqrt$(R(z)/R(0)) − 1 turns a single spectrum into a measurement of α. The analysis combines an eight-parameter MCMC fit (two Gaussians plus a linear continuum) to extract Δλ, a linear fit in Hubble time to convert the Δα/α(z) sample into dα/dt, and a dark-energy model in which a gauge kinetic function B_F(φ)=1−ζ√(8πG)(φ−φ0) and a CPL equation of state w(z)=w0+wa z/(1+z) translate the redshift dependence of Δα/α into a bound on ζ.

What would settle it

Take a higher-resolution spectrum of NIRSpec 10013905 that cleanly resolves the narrow [O III] cores from any broad AGN emission, or measure the [O II] λλ3726,3729 doublet in the same galaxy; if the inferred Δα/α departs from zero by more than the quoted uncertainties, the paper's null result is contradicted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the fine-structure constant has remained constant, within current uncertainties, from z≈8.5 to today. Using the α² scaling of the [O III] doublet separation, the authors extract Δα/α from each galaxy's spectrum; both values are compatible with zero. Joined with previous quasar-absorption measurements over 0.2<z<7.1, the sample gives a time derivative (1/α)dα/dt = 0.$30^{{+4.5}}$_{-4.5} × $10^{-17}$ $yr^{-1}$, consistent with no evolution. The paper further claims that, under the CPL parametrization of dark energy with a linear gauge kinetic function, the same Δα/α(z) data imply a 95% upper limit ζ ≤ 3.92 × $10^{-7}$ on the dark-energy–electromagnetic coupling, which it reports as the most stringent constraint to date.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that the rest-frame separation of the [O III] doublet scales exactly as α² and is measured without bias; if many-electron atomic corrections shift that exponent, or if light from a galaxy's active black hole contaminates the line cores (one of the two sources is such a candidate), every derived Δα/α value shifts with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At redshifts 7.19 and 8.47, α agrees with its local value to within about 10^-4 to 10^-3, extending direct astrophysical probes of constant-drift to the first billion years of cosmic history.
  • The combined dataset bounds any drift to (1/α)dα/dt = 0.30 ± 4.5 × 10^-17 yr^-1, ruling out the large temporal variations of α that motivated Dirac's large-numbers hypothesis.
  • Dark energy's coupling to electromagnetism is constrained to ζ ≤ 3.92 × 10^-7 at 95% confidence, about three orders of magnitude stronger than the earlier CMB-based bound ζ < 10^-3.
  • Systematic calibration of the NIRSpec wavelength scale currently dominates the error budget, so further tightening needs improved calibration or additional spectral diagnostics rather than longer integrations on these two objects alone.
  • If more [O III]-bright galaxies at z>7 are observed with JWST, the combined sample will shrink both the Δα/α and ζ uncertainties.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the paper's ζ bound is derived within a specific model class—a linear gauge kinetic function and a CPL dark-energy equation of state—so the 'most stringent' label is model-dependent rather than a model-free statement about nature.
  • Inference: because one of the two galaxies is a candidate AGN, the cleanest near-term test of the method would be to apply it to a sample that excludes AGN candidates or models their broad-line components; the current consistency with zero could then be checked against a clean sample.
  • Inference: if the α² scaling for [O III] is verified by atomic physics, the same method applied to growing JWST spectroscopic catalogs could push Δα/α precision below 10^-5 at z>7, eventually competing with laboratory atomic-clock limits on today's drift of α.
  • Inference: the technique could also be turned into a spatial-variation probe—comparing many [O III] emitters at similar redshift across the sky would test whether α is the same in different directions, not just at different times.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes JWST/NIRSpec G395H spectra of two z>7 [O III] λλ4959,5007 emitting galaxies. By fitting the doublet separation it derives Δα/α for each source, combines these with earlier Δα/α(z) measurements to infer (1/α)dα/dt = 0.30^{+4.5}_{-4.5} × 10^{-17} yr^{-1}, and finally uses a scalar-field dark-energy model with a CPL equation of state to claim ζ ≤ 3.92 × 10^{-7} at 95% CL, described as the most stringent bound to date.

Significance. The paper addresses an interesting question with a relatively clean observational method, and the two new JWST measurements are potentially useful high-redshift datapoints for fine-structure-constant studies. The no-evolution conclusion for α is plausible. However, the headline dark-energy–electromagnetism bound is not reproducible from the reported posterior, the model curve used to display it is mathematically ill-defined for the quoted CPL parameters, and there is an apparent factor-of-1000 inconsistency in the slope conversion. These issues affect the paper's central quantitative claims. I see no sign of circular reasoning: the extraction of Δα/α from the [O III] doublet separation is a normal measurement, and the DE-EM bound is model-dependent but not internally circular. The paper would be strengthened by providing the MCMC chains or at least the exact definition of the quoted confidence limit.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.2, Fig. 4] The 95% upper limit ζ ≤ 3.92 × 10^{-7} is not derivable from the shown posterior. The text reports log10 ζ = -20.14^{+11.13}_{-11.90}; if the quoted errors are 1σ, a one-sided 95% upper is approximately log10 ζ ≈ -20.14 + 1.645 × 11.13 ≈ -1.8, while if they are 2σ the implied 1σ is 5.57 and a 95% upper is ≈ -11.0. Neither equals log10(3.92 × 10^{-7}) ≈ -6.41. The manuscript should state whether the limit is a posterior quantile, a profile-likelihood bound, or a prior-dependent quantity, and should show how it is obtained from the same fit displayed in Fig. 4.
  2. [§4.2, Eqs. (13)–(15)] The displayed curve with w0 = -0.957, wa = -0.29 violates the canonical-quintessence condition 1 + w(z) > 0 for z > 0.17, making the square-root integrand of Eq. (13) imaginary over most of the JWST redshift range. The ζ = 3.92 × 10^{-7} curve in Fig. 4 is therefore undefined where it is plotted, and the 95% bound quoted for those CPL parameters is not a valid model prediction. The analysis should either restrict the prior to w(z) > -1 or treat phantom crossing explicitly.
  3. [§4.1 and Appendix A.3] The reported slope and the displayed S posterior are inconsistent by about three orders of magnitude. With H0 = 67.4 km/s/Mpc = 6.88 × 10^{-11} yr^{-1}, Eq. (9) gives (1/α)dα/dt = S H0/2. The quoted S = 0.077^{+2.2}_{-2.2} × 10^{-9} then yields ≈ 2.7 × 10^{-21} yr^{-1}, not 0.30^{+4.5}_{-4.5} × 10^{-17} yr^{-1}; obtaining the quoted value requires S ≈ 0.087 × 10^{-6}. Please clarify the exponent in Fig. A.3 or correct the conversion.
  4. [§2.2 and §4.3] The conversion in Eq. (1) assumes the [O III] doublet separation scales exactly as α^2. For a many-electron fine-structure transition the sensitivity coefficient can deviate from 2, and the authors do not quantify this. In addition, NIRSpec 10013905 is an AGN candidate (Section 4.3); a broad-line component could shift the fitted centroid and bias Δα/α. The dismissal in Section 4.3 ('no strong evidence... under the current uncertainty') needs a quantitative test, e.g., fitting with and without a broad component or reporting the posterior on the line width.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Eqs. (1)–(2)] λbar is called the average of the wavelengths, but R(0) = 4.80967 × 10^{-3} corresponds to Δλ/(λ1 + λ2), not Δλ/((λ1 + λ2)/2). Please define λbar consistently with the calculation actually performed.
  2. [Eq. (6)] The propagation formula should be derived from Eq. (1); as written, the last term uses R in place of R(0) in the denominator, and the expression should be verified to keep σ² positive for the quoted parameters.
  3. [Section 3, after Eq. (6)] The sentence 'The larger uncertainty is the systematic one. The smaller one is 1-σ statistical error' appears to reverse the two quoted errors; the larger quoted values are labeled statistical in the same sentence.
  4. [Table 1 and throughout] There are several typographical issues: 'Tabel 1' should be 'Table 1', 'priori' should be 'prior', and Figure 3 contains garbled Unicode in the axis labels.
  5. [Figure 3 and Eq. (8)] The x-axis of Figure 3 is labeled 'Lookback Time (Gyr)' while Eq. (8) computes a dimensionless H0 t; the text should specify the conversion to physical time units.
  6. [Footnote 1 and Section 4.2] Jiang et al. (2024b) is cited as arXiv:2405.08977; please provide the published reference if available, and compare the present [O III]-based limits with their results in the text, given the claim of the 'most stringent bound to date'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the measurements are externally calibrated and the model fits are standard inference.

full rationale

The paper's core Δα/α measurements are derived from the observed [O III] doublet separation Δλ fitted to JWST spectra, converted via Eq. (1) using the laboratory value R(0) in Eq. (2). That lab ratio is an external input, not constructed from the model being tested, so the measurement is not circular. The subsequent estimates of (1/α)dα/dt and the dark-energy–electromagnetic coupling ζ come from fitting the collected Δα/α(z) data to Eqs. (7)–(15); these are parameter-constrained inferences, not predictions that were used to generate the same data. No load-bearing self-citation appears: the cited prior works (Bahcall et al. 2004; Calabrese et al. 2014; Planck Collaboration et al. 2020) are external references, and the authors do not cite themselves for a core premise. The fact that the reported ζ ≤ 3.92×10⁻⁷ bound is difficult to reproduce from the quoted posterior median and error in Fig. 4, or that the plotted w0 = −0.957, wa = −0.29 model has an imaginary integrand in Eq. (13) for z ≳ 0.17, is a statistical or modeling-consistency concern, not a circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to its inputs.

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

The central claims rest on the [O III] doublet method, the assumed α² scaling, a fixed ΛCDM cosmology, and the CPL dark energy model. The spectral fits introduce several nuisance parameters, and the DE-EM bound requires fitting ζ, w0, wa. No new entities are invented beyond the models already present in the cited literature.

free parameters (5)
  • λ2 (wavelength of [O III]5007 in observed frame) = 4.11^{+0.0000267}_{-0.0000266} µm (10013905); 4.74^{+0.0000668}_{-0.0000663} µm (00008013)
    Fitted centroid; enters the Δα/α propagation in Eq (6).
  • Δλ (doublet separation) = 0.0393^{+0.0000662}_{-0.0000649} µm (10013905); 0.0453^{+0.000162}_{-0.000164} µm (00008013)
    Central fitted parameter; directly enters Eq (1).
  • S (time evolution slope) = 0.077 ± 2.2 × 10^-9 (Appendix A.3)
    Fitted to the combined Δα/α(z) data in Eq (7).
  • ζ (DE-EM coupling strength) = log10 ζ = -20.14^{+11.13}_{-11.90}; reported 95% upper ζ ≤ 3.92e-7
    Fitted via Eq (13); central advertised result.
  • w0, wa (CPL dark energy parameters) = w0 = 0.94 ± 0.08, wa = -0.09 ± 0.18 (posterior)
    Marginalized in the ζ fit with Gaussian priors from Planck+SNe+BAO.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Δλ/λ̄ ∝ α² for the [O III] λλ4959,5007 doublet
    Used in Eq (1) to convert the measured wavelength separation into Δα/α; assumes the fine-structure splitting scales as α² with no other physics.
  • standard math Present-day R(0) = 4.80967 × 10^-3
    Laboratory value of the doublet separation ratio, used as the denominator in Eq (1).
  • domain assumption ΛCDM cosmology with H0 = 67.4, Ωm = 0.3, ΩΛ = 0.7
    Used in Eq (8) to convert redshift to cosmic time for the S fit.
  • domain assumption CPL parametrization w(z) = w0 + wa z/(1+z) and Ωφ(z) evolution
    Eqs (14)-(15) define the dark energy model used in Eq (13) for the ζ constraint.
  • domain assumption Gauge kinetic function BF(ϕ) = 1 - ζ√(8πG)(ϕ - ϕ0)
    Eq (11) from the literature; linear coupling between the dark energy scalar and electromagnetism, leading to Eqs (12)-(13).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of JWST observations constrain the time evolution of fine structure constants and dark energy - electromagnetic coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5FO3UCGX

@misc{pith2026241108774,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: JWST observations constrain the time evolution of fine structure constants and dark energy - electromagnetic coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5FO3UCGX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.08774}
}
abstract

It was hypothesized in the literature that some physical parameters may be time-evolving and the astrophysical data can serve as a probe. Recently, James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) have released its early observations. In this work, we select the JWST spectroscopic observations of the high redshift ($z>7.1$) galaxies with strong [OIII] ($\lambda=4959$ \AA \,and $5007$ \AA \,in the rest frame) emission lines to constraint the evolution of the fine structure constant ($\alpha$). With the spectra from two galaxies at redshifts of $7.19$ and $8.47$, the deviation of $\alpha$ to its fiducial value is found to be as small as $0.44^{+8.4+1.7}_{-8.3-1.7} \times 10^{-4}$ and $-10.0^{+18+1.5}_{-18-1.5} \times 10^{-4}$, respectively (the first error is statistical and the latter is systematic). The combination of our results with the previous data reveals that $\frac{1}{\alpha} \frac{d \alpha}{dt} = 0.30^{+4.5}_{-4.5} \times 10^{-17}~{\rm yr^{-1}}$. Clearly, there is no evidence for a cosmic evolution of $\alpha$. The prospect of further constraining the time evolution of $\alpha$ is also discussed. The scalar field of dark energy is hypothesized to drive the acceleration of the universe's expansion through an interaction with the electromagnetic field. By integrating the observational data of the fine-structure constant variation, $\frac{\Delta\alpha}{\alpha}(z)$, we have established a stringent upper limit on the coupling strength between dark energy and electromagnetism. Our analysis yields $\zeta \leq 3.92 \times 10^{-7}$ at the 95\% confidence level, representing the most stringent bound to date.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.08774 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The best-fit model and JWST-NIRSpec data of NIRSpec 10013905 [O III] emission lines. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Same as Figure 1, but for the source NIRSpec 00008013. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Direct measurements of ∆α α in different cosmic epochs. The red data points are from best-fit [O III] results of the two JWST emission line galaxies NIRSpec 10013905 and NIRSpec 00008013 in this work. The others in black are from different references with MM methods (King et al. 2012; Wilczynska et al. 2015; Martins & Pinho 2017; Wilczynska et al. 2020). 0 2 4 6 8 10 redshift 10 3 10 2 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left: The constraints on fine-structure constant evolution induced by dark energy coupling with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Black Holes in the Red-sequence Elliptical Galaxies at Redshifts $\sim 0.7-2.5$: Not Dark Energy Source but Remanants of Little Red Dots

    astro-ph.CO 2025-06 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    At redshifts 2 to 7, black holes in massive elliptical hosts show no sign of the cosmological growth needed to make black holes the dark energy, with k=0.13 +/- 0.27 instead of k=3.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    S., Leite, A

    Alves, C. S., Leite, A. C. O., Martins, C. J. A. P., et al. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 023522 2

    work page 2018

  2. [2]

    P., Martins, C

    Avelino, P. P., Martins, C. J. A. P., Nunes, N. J., & Olive, K. A. 2006, Phys. Rev. D, 74, 083508 7

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    N., & Salpeter, E

    Bahcall, J. N., & Salpeter, E. 1965, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 142, p. 1677-1680, 142, 1677 3

    work page 1965

  4. [4]

    N., Sargent, W

    Bahcall, J. N., Sargent, W. L., & Schmidt, M. 1967, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 149, p. L11, 149, L11 3

    work page 1967

  5. [5]

    N., Steinhardt, C

    Bahcall, J. N., Steinhardt, C. L., & Schlegel, D. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 600, 520 3, 6, 9

    work page 2004

  6. [6]

    J., Cameron, A

    Bunker, A. J., Cameron, A. J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02467 2

    arXiv 2023

  7. [7]

    2014, Phys

    Calabrese, E., Martinelli, M., Pandolfi, S., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 89, 083509 7

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    P., & Mei, Y

    Chen, X., Ellingsen, S. P., & Mei, Y . 2019, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, 19, 018 7

    work page 2019

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    2001, Int

    Chevallier, M., & Polarski, D. 2001, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 10, 213 7

    2001

  2. [10]

    Dirac, P. A. M. 1937, Nature, 139, 323 1

    1937

  3. [11]

    Dyson, F. J. 1967, Physical Review Letters, 19, 1291 2

    1967

  4. [12]

    J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al

    Eisenstein, D. J., Willott, C., Alberts, S., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2306.02465 2

    2023 arXiv

  5. [13]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306 4

    2013

  6. [14]

    1967, Physical Review Letters, 19, 759 2

    Gamow, G. 1967, Physical Review Letters, 19, 759 2

    1967

  7. [15]

    2022, A&A, 661, A80 4

    Jakobsen, P., Ferruit, P., Alves de Oliveira, C., et al. 2022, A&A, 661, A80 4

    2022

  8. [16]

    2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.08977 2

    Jiang, L., Fu, S., Wang, F., et al. 2024b, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2405.08977 2

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    A., Webb, J

    King, J. A., Webb, J. K., Murphy, M. T., et al. 2012, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 422, 3370 6, 7, 8

    2012

  10. [18]

    Linder, E. V . 2003, Phys. Rev. Lett., 90, 091301 7

    2003

  11. [19]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230 9

    Maiolino, R., Scholtz, J., Curtis-Lake, E., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2308.01230 9

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    2017, Physical Review D, 95, 023008 2, 6, 7, 8 Miralda-Escud´e, J

    Martins, C., & Pinho, A. 2017, Physical Review D, 95, 023008 2, 6, 7, 8 Miralda-Escud´e, J. 1998, ApJ, 501, 15 3

    2017

  13. [21]

    1980, Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol

    Moorwood, A., Salinari, P., Furniss, I., Jennings, R., & King, K. 1980, Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 90, no. 3, Oct. 1980, p. 304-310. Research supported by the Science Research Council., 90, 304 3

    1980

  14. [22]

    2020, Nature, 588, 61 1

    Morel, L., Yao, Z., Clad´e, P., & Guellati-Kh´elifa, S. 2020, Nature, 588, 61 1

    2020

  15. [23]

    2010, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 19, 2289–2294 7

    MOSS, A., NARIMANI, A., & SCOTT, D. 2010, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 19, 2289–2294 7

    2010

  16. [24]

    Mukhanov, V . F. 2005, Physical foundations of cosmology (Cambridge university press) 6

    2005

  17. [25]

    J., & Lidsey, J

    Nunes, N. J., & Lidsey, J. E. 2004, Phys. Rev. D, 69, 123511 7

    2004

  18. [26]

    A., & Pospelov, M

    Olive, K. A., & Pospelov, M. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 65, 085044 8, 9

    2002

  19. [27]

    R., & Reeder, K

    Peck, E. R., & Reeder, K. 1972, JOSA, 62, 958 3

    1972

  20. [28]

    V ., Nazarov, A

    Petrov, Y . V ., Nazarov, A. I., Onegin, M. S., Petrov, V . Y ., & Sakhnovsky, E. G. 2006, Phys. Rev. C, 74, 064610 2

    2006

  21. [29]

    1982, Physica Scripta, 26, 296 3 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al

    Pettersson, S.-G. 1982, Physica Scripta, 26, 296 3 Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y ., et al. 2020, A&A, 641, A6 2, 7

    1982

  22. [30]

    E., Ellis, R

    Robertson, B. E., Ellis, R. S., Dunlop, J. S., McLure, R. J., & Stark, D. P. 2010, Nature, 468, 49 3

    2010

  23. [31]

    B., Schmidt, P

    Rosenband, T., Hume, D. B., Schmidt, P. O., et al. 2008, Science, 319, 1808 2

    2008

  24. [32]

    Savedoff, M. P. 1956, Nature, 178, 688 2, 3

    1956

  25. [33]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.18731 9

    Scholtz, J., Maiolino, R., D’Eugenio, F., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2311.18731 9

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    1963, in Soviet Physics Doklady, V ol

    Stanyukovich, K. 1963, in Soviet Physics Doklady, V ol. 7, 1150 2

    1963

  27. [35]

    1948, Physical Review, 73, 801 1

    Teller, E. 1948, Physical Review, 73, 801 1

    1948

  28. [36]

    Thompson, R. I. 2013, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 431, 2576 7

    2013

  29. [37]

    W., Stark, D

    Topping, M. W., Stark, D. P., Endsley, R., et al. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 529, 4087 4

    2024

  30. [38]

    E., & Martins, C

    Vielzeuf, P. E., & Martins, C. J. A. P. 2014, Mem. Soc. Ast. It., 85, 155 7

    2014

  31. [39]

    K., Flambaum, V

    Webb, J. K., Flambaum, V . V ., Churchill, C. W., Drinkwater, M. J., & Barrow, J. D. 1999, Physical Review Letters, 82, 884–887 3

    1999

  32. [40]

    K., Murphy, M

    Webb, J. K., Murphy, M. T., Flambaum, V . V ., et al. 2001, Physical Review Letters, 87 3 14 Z.-F. Wang et al

    2001

  33. [41]

    R., Webb, J

    Wilczynska, M. R., Webb, J. K., King, J. A., et al. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 454, 3082 2, 6, 7, 8

    2015

  34. [42]

    R., Webb, J

    Wilczynska, M. R., Webb, J. K., Bainbridge, M., et al. 2020, Science Advances, 6, eaay9672 2, 6, 7, 8

    2020

  35. [43]

    Wise, J. H. 2019, Contemporary Physics, 60, 145–163 3

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.