Testing an unstable cosmic neutrino background

Pasquale Di Bari

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 31 references

Testing an unstable cosmic neutrino background

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Radiative decays of relic neutrinos into sterile partners can explain the excess radio background: six points fit at $\chi^2_{\rm min}\simeq 1$ for $\tau_1=1.46\times10^{21}$ s and $m_1-m_s=4.0\times10^{-5}$ eV, and the predicted 21 cm…

desk verdict Proceedings summary of a provocative idea; the ARCADE2 fit is clean but violates the paper's own magnetic-moment bound by ~15 orders of magnitude, with no model offered to circumvent it. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05405 v1 pith:EAQ73FHI submitted 2025-05-08 hep-ph

Pasquale Di Bari This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-ph

keywords unstablecosmicneutrinobackgroundrelicdecayradiativeexcessradio21cmcosmologycosmologicalmassboundmagneticmomentsterile

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

The paper argues that an unstable cosmic neutrino background is a live possibility testable by cosmology, and that several independent anomalies currently point to it. Its central concrete claim is quantitative: relic neutrinos decaying non-relativistically into nearly degenerate sterile neutrinos can account for the measured excess radio background at gigahertz frequencies, with a best fit at lifetime $\tau_1 = 1.46\times10^{21}$ s and mass splitting $m_1 - m_s = 4.0\times10^{-5}$ eV that reproduces the six usable data points with $\chi^2_{\rm min}\simeq 1$. The same decay channel would generate a 21 cm absorption feature at cosmic dawn that is weaker than the claimed absorption anomaly, so the radio background solution does not depend on that anomaly being real. The paper also argues that invisible decays of relic neutrinos would relax the cosmological upper bound on the sum of neutrino masses and thereby ease its apparent tension with the lower bound from oscillation experiments. It states plainly that the missing piece is a model: the standard relation between decay rate and effective magnetic moment would force the fitted lifetime to be about fifteen orders of magnitude longer than required.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the non-relativistic radiative decay $\nu_1 \to \nu_s + \gamma$ of a relic neutrino into a quasi-degenerate sterile neutrino. Because the parent neutrino is essentially at rest, the emitted photon's present energy is set by the mass splitting $\Delta m = m_1 - m_s$ and its redshift at decay, so a small splitting places the radiation in the radio band; the predicted specific intensity depends on the combination $\Delta m^{3/2}\tau_1$, the expansion rate, and the age of the universe at decay. The companion identity is the general relation $\Gamma_{\nu_j\to\nu_i+\gamma} = (\mu_{ij}^{\rm eff}/8\pi)\,[(m_j^2-m_i^2)/m_j]^3$ linking the radiative decay rate to the effective neutrino magnetic moment; this relation is what converts laboratory and stellar bounds on neutrino magnetic moments into the severe lifetime lower bound that the fitted solution must circumvent.

What would settle it

Measure the absolute radio sky temperature from a few GHz up to roughly 90 GHz: the fitted spectrum has a sharp end-point at photon energy $m_1-m_s \simeq 4\times10^{-5}$ eV (about 10 GHz), so a smooth power-law excess with no spectral break at or below that frequency would rule the decay solution out. A laboratory or astrophysical bound on the neutrino effective magnetic moment below the value implied by relation (2) for the fit would independently close the model loophole.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's discovery is a specific fit: a background of relic neutrinos decaying at rest into quasi-degenerate sterile neutrinos produces a smooth non-thermal radio signal whose effective temperature follows a definite spectral shape, and the shape matches the measured sky-brightness excess with $\chi^2_{\rm min}\simeq 1$ when the decay lifetime and mass splitting take the values in Eq. (21). A distinctive feature of the fit is a spectral end-point at photon energy $E = m_1 - m_s$, which gives the explanation a sharp observable signature. The paper further maintains that the same parameter choice yields a 21 cm absorption signal about an order of magnitude weaker in $\Delta m^{3/2}\tau_1$ than the level needed to explain the claimed cosmic-dawn anomaly, so the two sets of observations are consistent with one decay hypothesis. The obstacle it identifies is the general relation (2), from which the fitted splitting implies $\tau_i \gtrsim 10^{36}$ s, about fifteen orders of magnitude longer than the fitted lifetime; constructing a model that evades this relation is left open.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that relic neutrinos can radiatively decay on a timescale of about $10^{21}$ s into a nearly mass-degenerate sterile neutrino, although the standard decay-rate/magnetic-moment relation forces such lifetimes to be at least fifteen orders of magnitude longer for the fitted splitting.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A radio-background measurement that resolves the spectrum around the end-point energy $m_1-m_s \simeq 4\times10^{-5}$ eV would confirm or kill the fit directly.
If the fit is right, the expected cosmic-dawn 21 cm absorption signal is weaker than the level claimed in the reported anomaly, so a real anomaly of that size would need additional physics beyond radiative neutrino decay.
Invisible neutrino decays with lifetimes of order $10^{17}$ s would remove or weaken the apparent conflict between the cosmological upper bound and the oscillation lower bound on the sum of neutrino masses.
Any complete model behind the fit must beat the $\tau_i\gtrsim10^{36}$ s lifetime lower bound derived from the magnetic-moment relation; the paper presents this as the decisive open problem.

Reading between the lines

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

If the radio background fit is correct, future higher-frequency measurements should see a spectral break rather than a smooth power law; a synchrotron-like astrophysical foreground would predict the opposite, so the break is the cleanest discriminator between neutrino decay and conventional radio sources.
A model that evades the magnetic-moment bound would most naturally suppress the dipole operator while preserving the radiative decay channel, which implies that the effective magnetic moment should lie well below current experimental limits and that improved laboratory bounds would indirectly test the solution.
If invisible decay indeed relaxes the cosmological mass bound, future galaxy-survey limits on the neutrino mass sum will have to be interpreted through decay parameters rather than treated as a direct measurement of the masses themselves.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a talk write-up, not a new research paper. It summarizes Dev, Di Bari, Martínez-Soler and Roshan (2024) plus a companion in preparation, and it connects the DESI neutrino mass tension, the EDGES anomaly, and the ARCADE2 excess through one idea: relic neutrinos decaying into quasi-degenerate sterile neutrinos. The one genuinely new element for me is the explicit comparison of the EDGES and ARCADE2 applications, which is useful. The intensity formalism is laid out cleanly, and the chi^2 ~ 1 fit to the six ARCADE2 points is a striking coincidence. I also want to give credit for the honest paragraph at the end of Section 6, which states plainly that the fitted lifetime tau1 = 1.46e21 s lies about fifteen orders of magnitude below the bound from Eq. (4) for Delta m = 4e-5 eV. That is a real admission, not a buried caveat.

The soft spot is just as the stress-test says: the admission is also the point where the argument stops. Eq. (2) is presented as a general relation between radiative width and effective magnetic moment, and the paper offers no model, operator, or symmetry that could evade it. So the ARCADE2 fit is a kinematic fit at a parameter point that is forbidden under the paper's own framework. That is an internal consistency problem, not a matter of external skepticism. The DESI relaxation via invisible decays is on firmer ground, but it relies on earlier work by Escudero-Lopez-Pavon-Rius-Sandner and Craig-Green-Meyers-Rajendran and is not new here. And because tau1 and Delta m are fitted to ARCADE2, the 21 cm signal is a cross-check using the same inputs, not an independent prediction. The paper is transparent about that, but it does lower the evidential value.

Who is this for? Someone who wants a compact overview of the unstable-neutrino cosmology program, or someone working on the ARCADE2 excess. It is not a primary claim you can build on without first solving the magnetic moment problem. I would read it as a status report from a line of research that has a clear obstacle.

Recommendation: if this were submitted as a regular paper, a serious editor should send it out, because the unresolved tension between the fitted lifetime and Eq. (4) is exactly what a referee should push on. As a proceedings contribution it is acceptable, with the caveat stated. I would not cite it over the JCAP original, since the content is derivative and the original has the full derivation.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This proceedings contribution argues that an unstable cosmic neutrino background (CNB) could address several independent low-energy anomalies. After reviewing the DESI-inspired tension between the cosmological upper bound on the sum of neutrino masses and the lower bound from oscillation experiments, the paper discusses how invisible decays of relic neutrinos could relax the cosmological bound. It then derives the specific intensity of non-thermal radiation from radiative decays of non-relativistic relic neutrinos into quasi-degenerate sterile neutrinos, and applies this formalism to two observables: the EDGES 21 cm absorption feature and the ARCADE2 excess radio background. The central quantitative claim is that the six ARCADE2 data points are well fitted (chi2_min ~ 1) by a radiative decay lifetime tau1 = 1.46e21 s and a mass splitting m1 - ms = 4.0e-5 eV, with a spectral endpoint at the mass splitting. The paper closes by explicitly acknowledging that this parameter point violates the lower bound on the radiative decay lifetime derived from effective magnetic moment constraints, and it states that a model circumventing Eq. (2) is needed.

Significance. If a viable microphysical model existed that suppressed the effective magnetic moment while keeping tau1 ~ 1e21 s, the proposal would be significant: it would connect the DESI neutrino-mass tension, the EDGES anomaly, and the ARCADE2 excess radio background through a common hypothesis of unstable relic neutrinos, and it would make falsifiable predictions such as a spectral endpoint and a 21 cm absorption signal weaker than the EDGES claim. The paper is honest and transparent about the main obstacle and it gives an explicit derivation of the intensity formula from prior work. However, because the required model is not provided, the significance is conditional: the ARCADE2 explanation is currently a kinematic fit at a parameter point that is in conflict with the same general relation that is used elsewhere in the paper.

major comments (2)

[Sec. 6, Eq. (21) and final paragraph] The best-fit lifetime tau1 = 1.46e21 s violates the lower bound in Eq. (4), which for Delta m = 4.0e-5 eV gives tau >= 2.5e21 s * (1 eV / 4.0e-5 eV)^3 ~ 4e34 s, roughly 13-15 orders of magnitude longer than the fitted value. Because Eq. (2) is presented as a general relation between radiative decay width and effective magnetic moment, and Eq. (4) is derived from it together with the experimental bounds in Eq. (3), this is not a harmless fine-tuning problem but an internal incompatibility: the parameter point used to explain the ARCADE2 excess is excluded by the framework adopted in the same manuscript. The paper explicitly acknowledges this difficulty and states that a model should circumvent the relation, but no operator, symmetry, or identifiable assumption in Eq. (2) is provided. As a result, the claim that the ARCADE2 excess is 'nicely explained' by relic neutrino radiative decays is not established; it should either be supported by a concrete model or reframed as an unconstrained phenomenological fit.
[Sec. 6, Eqs. (19)-(21)] The comparison with the EDGES anomaly is not a parameter-free prediction. The values of tau1 and Delta m used in the EDGES discussion are the same values obtained from the ARCADE2 fit, so the 21 cm signal is a consistency check of a two-parameter model against an observed absorption feature, not an independent test of the radiative-decay mechanism. In particular, the statement that the predicted signal is weaker than EDGES is a consequence of the chosen best-fit parameters, and the paper should explicitly distinguish such a cross-check from a prediction that could falsify the model. The manuscript should also clarify how the quoted ~3 sigma tension with Eq. (19) is quantified, since the statistical procedure is not described here.

minor comments (5)

[Abstract and general prose] There are several grammatical and stylistic errors, including 'I discuss out how actually there are different independent anomalies' and 'resulting into an unstable cosmic neutrino background'; these should be corrected before publication.
[Sec. 6, after Eq. (21)] The quoted lower limit 'tau_i >= 10^36 s' is about a factor of 25 larger than the value obtained by direct substitution into Eq. (4) with Delta m = 4.0e-5 eV, which gives approximately 4e34 s; please verify the numerical coefficient and the order-of-magnitude statement.
[Eq. (19) and surrounding text] The notation Delta m_1 is used without definition; please define Delta m_1 = m_1 - m_s at first use and keep the subscript convention consistent with Eq. (20) and the rest of the text.
[References] Reference [28] lists the arXiv identifier twice ('2301.10345 [2301.10345]'); the duplicate should be removed.
[Eq. (11) and following sentence] The text says the interaction in Eq. (10) would open a 'low scale dark sector', but only a scalar field is introduced in that equation; please clarify what is meant by 'low scale dark sector' in this context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the ARCADE2 fit and the 21 cm check are independent applications of a shared intensity formula, and the admitted lifetime violation is an open model problem, not a circular argument.

full rationale

The paper's central quantitative claim is a fit of two free parameters, tau_1 and Delta m = m_1 - m_s, to the six ARCADE2 excess points using the explicit specific-intensity formula Eq. (20). The parameters are not defined in terms of the data that are then 'predicted'; the 21 cm comparison evaluates the same fitted model at a different frequency and redshift. That is an out-of-sample consistency check rather than a fitted input renamed as a prediction. The intensity formula itself is stated explicitly and traced to earlier literature (Refs. [20, 21, 1]), including the independent Masso-Toldra derivation, so it is not constructed ad hoc to match ARCADE2. The paper also openly identifies the main weakness: the best-fit lifetime tau_1 = 1.46e21 s violates its own lower bound Eq. (4), which for Delta m = 4.0e-5 eV gives tau_i ~ 1e36 s, and states that 'a model should then be able to circumvent the connection between lifetime and effective magnetic moment enforced by the relation (2)'. This is a serious soundness caveat and an admitted open model-building problem, but it is not a circular reduction: the constraint and the fit are independently stated, and the paper does not pretend the conflict is resolved. Self-citations appear (Refs. [1, 2, 21]), but the load-bearing equations are reproduced in the text and the magnetic-moment/lifetime relation Eq. (2) is attributed to standard textbook references [4, 5]. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' previous work, and no ansatz is smuggled in via citation: the quasi-degenerate sterile-neutrino decay channel is an explicitly stated assumption. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained and the only strong caveat is physical viability, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central explanation rests on two fitted parameters plus the undeveloped assumption that a model can decouple radiative decay rates from magnetic moment bounds. None of these have external support in the paper.

free parameters (2)

tau1 (relic neutrino radiative decay lifetime) = 1.46e21 s
Fitted to the six ARCADE2 data points via Eq. (20); used to predict the 21 cm signal.
m1 - ms (mass splitting between lightest active neutrino and daughter sterile neutrino) = 4.0e-5 eV
Second fit parameter in Eq. (21); sets the spectral endpoint E = m1 - ms.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption LambdaCDM background with Planck parameters Omega_M0 ~ 0.3111 and H0 ~ 1/t0
Used in Eqs. (16) and (17) to compute H(aD) and t(aD) in the intensity formula.
domain assumption Relic neutrino number density is the standard stable value n_inf = (6/11) zeta(3)/pi^2 T^3 (Eq. 15)
Eq. (14) assumes decays do not deplete or replenish the neutrino density being tested.
ad hoc to paper A model exists that evades the Eq. (2) relation between radiative decay width and effective magnetic moment
The ARCADE2 best fit violates the resulting lifetime bound Eq. (4); the paper calls this a clear challenge and gives no mechanism.
domain assumption The six ARCADE2 points are a clean extragalactic excess with negligible unknown foregrounds
The fit interprets the excess as cosmological; the paper notes the background's nature is still unknown.

invented entities (1)

Quasi-degenerate sterile neutrino nu_s
purpose: Daughter particle in radiative decay nu1 -> nu_s + gamma, moving the photon energy below the FIRAS range
The fitted mass splitting m1 - ms = 4e-5 eV has no independent detection or production mechanism; it is introduced to fit the radio background.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing an unstable cosmic neutrino background." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EAQ73FHI

@misc{pith2026250505405,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing an unstable cosmic neutrino background},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EAQ73FHI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05405}
}

read the original abstract

I discuss how different cosmological observations can test the possibility that neutrinos might be unstable on cosmological times, resulting into an unstable cosmic neutrino background. I also discuss out how actually there are different independent anomalies intriguingly hint to such a possibility that would clearly point to new physics. I first focus on how the new DESI results place an upper bound on the sum of neutrino masses that starts to be in tension with the lower bound from neutrino oscillation experiments and how this tension could be easily solved assuming unstable relic neutrinos. Then I show how 21 cm cosmology allows to test radiative relic neutrino decays and how these could explain the controversial EDGES anomaly. I also discuss how the excess radio background and in particular the ARCADE 2 data can also be nicely explained by relic neutrino radiative decays. Finally, I point out the difficulties in building a model that does not clash with the upper limits on the effective magnetic moment coming from neutrino-electron scattering experiments and globular cluster stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05405 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Best fit curves for 𝑇ERB obtained with Eq. (20). The thick solid orange curve corresponds to a solution very close to the best global fit (Δ𝑚1 = 4.0 × 10−5 eV and 𝜏1 = 1.46 × 1021 s). The ARCADE 2 data points are taken from Ref. [29], while the power-law fit 𝛽 = −2.58 ± 0.05 (dotted line with grey shade) is from [31]. The figure is taken from [1]. best fit value Eq. (19) explaining the EDGES anomaly. Even taking int… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

31 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[1]

P. S. B. Dev, P. Di Bari, I. Martínez-Soler and R. Roshan,Relic neutrino decay solution to the excess radio background, JCAP04(2024), 046 [arXiv:2312.03082 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2024
[2]

P. S. B. Dev, P. Di Bari, I. Martínez-Soler and R. Roshan, in preparation

work page
[3]

D. J. Fixsen,The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background, Astrophys. J.707 (2009), 916-920 [arXiv:0911.1955 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2009
[4]

R.N.MohapatraandP.B.Pal, Massiveneutrinosinphysicsandastrophysics.Secondedition , World Sci. Lect. Notes Phys.60(1998), 1-397

work page 1998
[5]

Z. z. Xing and S. Zhou,Neutrinos in particle physics, astronomy and cosmology
[6]

A.G.Beda,V.B.Brudanin,V.G.Egorov,D.V.Medvedev,V.S.Pogosov,M.V.Shirchenko and A. S. Starostin,Upper limit on the neutrino magnetic moment from three years of data from the GEMMA spectrometer, [arXiv:1005.2736 [hep-ex]]

arXiv
[7]

Lett.64(1990), 2856-2858

G.G.Raffelt, Newboundonneutrinodipolemomentsfromglobularclusterstars ,Phys.Rev. Lett.64(1990), 2856-2858

work page 1990
[8]

38 (2021) no.15, 153001 [arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]]

E.DiValentino,O.Mena,S.Pan,L.Visinelli,W.Yang,A.Melchiorri,D.F.Mota,A.G.Riess andJ.Silk, IntherealmoftheHubbletension—areviewofsolutions ,Class.Quant.Grav. 38 (2021) no.15, 153001 [arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2021

Show all 31 references

[9]

ix Testing an unstable cosmic neutrino background9 Pasquale Di Bari

W.L.Freedman,B.F.Madore,I.S.Jang,T.J.Hoyt,A.J.LeeandK.A.Owens, StatusReport on the Chicago-Carnegie Hubble Program (CCHP): Measurement of the Hubble Constant Using the Hubble and James Webb Space Telescopes, [arXiv:2408.06153 [astro-ph.CO]]. ix Testing an unstable cosmic neutr...

arXiv
[10]

A.G.Riess,D.Scolnic,G.S.Anand,L.Breuval,S.Casertano,L.M.Macri,S.Li,W.Yuan, C. D. Huang and S. Jha,et al. JWST Validates HST Distance Measurements: Selection of Supernova Subsample Explains Differences in JWST Estimates of Local H0, Astrophys. J. 977 (2024) no.1, 120 [arXiv:240...

2024 arXiv
[11]

Schöneberg, G

N. Schöneberg, G. Franco Abellán, A. Pérez Sánchez, S. J. Witte, V. Poulin and J. Lesgour- gues, The H0 Olympics: A fair ranking of proposed models, Phys. Rept.984 (2022), 1-55 [arXiv:2107.10291 [astro-ph.CO]]

2022 arXiv
[12]

[DESI],DESI2024VI:cosmologicalconstraintsfromthemeasurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, JCAP02(2025), 021 [arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]]

A.G.Adame etal. [DESI],DESI2024VI:cosmologicalconstraintsfromthemeasurements of baryon acoustic oscillations, JCAP02(2025), 021 [arXiv:2404.03002 [astro-ph.CO]]

2025 arXiv
[13]

Esteban, M

I. Esteban, M. C. Gonzalez-Garcia, M. Maltoni, I. Martinez-Soler, J. P. Pinheiro and T. Schwetz,NuFit-6.0: updated global analysis of three-flavor neutrino oscillations, JHEP 12(2024), 216 [arXiv:2410.05380 [hep-ph]]

2024 arXiv
[14]

I.J.AllaliandA.Notari, NeutrinomassboundsfromDESI2024arerelaxedbyPlanckPR4 and cosmological supernovae, JCAP12 (2024), 020 [arXiv:2406.14554 [astro-ph.CO]]

2024 arXiv
[15]

Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints, [arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]]

M. Abdul Karimet al.[DESI], DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints, [arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv
[16]

[DESI],ConstraintsonNeutrinoPhysicsfromDESIDR2BAOandDR1Full Shape, [arXiv:2503.14744 [astro-ph.CO]]

W.Elbers etal. [DESI],ConstraintsonNeutrinoPhysicsfromDESIDR2BAOandDR1Full Shape, [arXiv:2503.14744 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv
[17]

Escudero, J

M. Escudero, J. Lopez-Pavon, N. Rius and S. Sandner,Relaxing Cosmological Neutrino Mass Bounds with Unstable Neutrinos, JHEP12 (2020), 119 [arXiv:2007.04994 [hep-ph]]

2020 arXiv
[18]

Craig, D

N. Craig, D. Green, J. Meyers and S. Rajendran,No𝜈s is Good News, JHEP09 (2024), 097 [arXiv:2405.00836 [astro-ph.CO]]

2024 arXiv
[19]

Barenboim, J

G. Barenboim, J. Z. Chen, S. Hannestad, I. M. Oldengott, T. Tram and Y. Y. Y. Wong, Invisible neutrino decay in precision cosmology, JCAP03 (2021), 087 [arXiv:2011.01502 [astro-ph.CO]]

2021 arXiv
[20]

Masso and R

E. Masso and R. Toldra,Photon spectrum produced by the late decay of a cosmic neutrino background, Phys. Rev. D60(1999), 083503 [arXiv:astro-ph/9903397 [astro-ph]]

1999 arXiv
[21]

Chianese, P

M. Chianese, P. Di Bari, K. Farrag and R. Samanta,Probing relic neutrino radiative decays with 21 cm cosmology, Phys. Lett. B790 (2019), 64-70 [arXiv:1805.11717 [hep-ph]]

2019 arXiv
[22]

Aghanim et al

N. Aghanim et al. [Planck], Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641(2020),A6[erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652(2021),C4][arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]]

2020 arXiv
[23]

x Testing an unstable cosmic neutrino background10 Pasquale Di Bari

P.DiBari, CosmologyandtheEarlyUniverse ,CRCPress,2018,ISBN978-1-4987-6170-3, 978-1-138-49690-3. x Testing an unstable cosmic neutrino background10 Pasquale Di Bari

2018
[24]

J. R. Pritchard and A. Loeb, 21-cm cosmology, Rept. Prog. Phys. 75 (2012), 086901 [arXiv:1109.6012 [astro-ph.CO]]

2012 arXiv
[25]

Zaldarriaga, S

M. Zaldarriaga, S. R. Furlanetto and L. Hernquist,21 Centimeter fluctuations from cosmic gasathighredshifts ,Astrophys.J. 608(2004),622-635[arXiv:astro-ph/0311514[astro-ph]]

2004 arXiv
[26]

J.D.Bowman,A.E.E.Rogers,R.A.Monsalve,T.J.MozdzenandN.Mahesh, Anabsorption profile centred at 78 megahertz in the sky-averaged spectrum, Nature555 (2018) no.7694, 67

2018
[27]

Singh, J

S. Singh, J. Nambissan T., R. Subrahmanyan, N. Udaya Shankar, B. S. Girish, A. Raghu- nathan, R. Somashekar, K. S. Srivani and M. Sathyanarayana Rao,On the detection of a cosmic dawn signal in the radio background, Nature Astron. 6 (2022) no.5, 607-617 [arXiv:2112.06778 [astro-ph.CO]]

2022 arXiv
[28]

S.D. Bale, N. Bassett, J.O. Burns, J. Dorigo Jones, K. Goetz, C. Hellum-Bye et al., LuSEE ’Night’: The Lunar Surface Electromagnetics Experiment, arXiv e-prints (2023) arXiv:2301.10345 [2301.10345]

2023 arXiv
[29]

J.734 (2011), 5 [arXiv:0901.0555 [astro-ph.CO]]

D.J.Fixsen,A.Kogut,S.Levin,M.Limon,P.Lubin,P.Mirel,M.Seiffert,J.Singal,E.Wol- lackandT.Villela, etal.ARCADE2MeasurementoftheExtra-GalacticSkyTemperatureat 3-90 GHz, Astrophys. J.734 (2011), 5 [arXiv:0901.0555 [astro-ph.CO]]

2011 arXiv
[30]

S. A. Grebenev and R. A. Sunyaev,Increase in the Brightness of the Cosmic Radio Back- groundtowardGalaxyClusters ,Astron.Lett. 50(2024),159-185[arXiv:2408.01858[astro- ph.HE]]

2024 arXiv
[31]

Dowell and G

J. Dowell and G. B. Taylor,The Radio Background Below 100 MHz, Astrophys. J. Lett.858 (2018) no.1, L9 [arXiv:1804.08581 [astro-ph.CO]]. xi

2018 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

P. S. B. Dev, P. Di Bari, I. Martínez-Soler and R. Roshan,Relic neutrino decay solution to the excess radio background, JCAP04(2024), 046 [arXiv:2312.03082 [hep-ph]]

arXiv 2024

[2] [2]

P. S. B. Dev, P. Di Bari, I. Martínez-Soler and R. Roshan, in preparation

work page

[3] [3]

D. J. Fixsen,The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background, Astrophys. J.707 (2009), 916-920 [arXiv:0911.1955 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2009

[4] [4]

R.N.MohapatraandP.B.Pal, Massiveneutrinosinphysicsandastrophysics.Secondedition , World Sci. Lect. Notes Phys.60(1998), 1-397

work page 1998

[5] [5]

Z. z. Xing and S. Zhou,Neutrinos in particle physics, astronomy and cosmology

[6] [6]

A.G.Beda,V.B.Brudanin,V.G.Egorov,D.V.Medvedev,V.S.Pogosov,M.V.Shirchenko and A. S. Starostin,Upper limit on the neutrino magnetic moment from three years of data from the GEMMA spectrometer, [arXiv:1005.2736 [hep-ex]]

arXiv

[7] [7]

Lett.64(1990), 2856-2858

G.G.Raffelt, Newboundonneutrinodipolemomentsfromglobularclusterstars ,Phys.Rev. Lett.64(1990), 2856-2858

work page 1990

[8] [8]

38 (2021) no.15, 153001 [arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]]

E.DiValentino,O.Mena,S.Pan,L.Visinelli,W.Yang,A.Melchiorri,D.F.Mota,A.G.Riess andJ.Silk, IntherealmoftheHubbletension—areviewofsolutions ,Class.Quant.Grav. 38 (2021) no.15, 153001 [arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]]

arXiv 2021