Spectra of magnetic fields from electroweak symmetry breaking

Axel Brandenburg; Tanmay Vachaspati

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 35 references

Spectra of magnetic fields from electroweak symmetry breaking

T0 review · 4 major / 5 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 Electroweak-symmetry-breaking magnetic fields scale as k⁴ on large scales, not k³; fed through magnetohydrodynamic decay they predict ~10⁻¹³ G on kpc scales today, or ~10⁻¹⁰ G on Mpc if maximally helical.

desk verdict Corrects the published k^3 slope for electroweak-symmetry-breaking magnetic fields to k^4 using a clean, parameter-free Kibble algorithm; the cosmological amplitudes are conditional on openly acknowledged inputs. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.00641 v3 pith:FPWPOLMH submitted 2024-12-01 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Tanmay Vachaspati , Axel Brandenburg This is my paper · ORCID

classification astro-ph.COhep-ph PACS 98.80.Cq12.15.-y

keywords electroweaksymmetrybreakingprimordialmagneticfieldsKibblemechanismhelicityHoskingintegralmagnetohydrodynamicdecayinversecascadecosmologicalmagnetogenesis

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 claims that magnetic fields created when the electroweak symmetry broke have an energy spectrum $E_M(k) \propto k^4$ on large length scales, not the $k^3$ scaling previously assumed, and that the distinction matters: the small-$k$ slope sets how the field's peak migrates and decays through the cosmic plasma. The claim is obtained from Kibble-mechanism arguments rather than expensive dynamical simulations — random Higgs orientations on the vacuum sphere in horizon-size domains guarantee magnetic fields, and a new plaquette-flux algorithm converts the resulting monopole–Z-string network into a divergence-free field whose spectrum can be measured at any resolution. Alongside the $k^4$ energy spectrum sits a nearly flat compensated helicity-variance spectrum $k^{-2}S_p(h)$, giving the field well-defined initial helicity fluctuations with zero mean. Combined with conserved-quantity scaling laws for magnetohydrodynamic turbulence, these spectra yield concrete present-epoch numbers: $B \sim 10^{-13}$ G with kpc coherence for non-helical fields, $B \sim 10^{-10}$ G with Mpc coherence for maximally helical fields, and interpolating scalings for partial helicity. A sympathetic reader would care because these are among the few ab initio, parameter-light predictions for the strength and scale of intergalactic magnetic fields, and because the correction changes results that multiple cosmological magnetogenesis estimates have built on.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by three linked mechanisms. First, the Kibble-mechanism vacuum: during electroweak symmetry breaking the Higgs vacuum expectation value takes independent random orientations on the vacuum manifold $S^3$ in domains of roughly horizon size, so $\nabla\Phi$ is generically nonzero and the Higgs-gradient term of Eq. (6) produces magnetic field. Second, the plaquette-flux algorithm (Eqs. 13–16): the associated gauge field $A = -i(2\sin\theta_w/g\eta^2)\Phi^\dagger\nabla\Phi$ is integrated around each lattice plaquette, and because the line integral picks up both the $+2\pi$ flux of the embedded magnetic monopoles and the $-2\pi$ flux of the Z-strings (Dirac strings) connecting them, the resulting field is exactly divergence-free — this is what lets a static, non-dynamical calculation stand in for the full electroweak evolution that converts Z-strings into electromagnetic flux. Third, conserved-quantity MHD decay scaling: the Hosking integral $I_H$ (conserved for non-helical decay, giving the peak envelope exponent $\epsilon = 3/2$) and the mean magnetic helicity $I_M$ (conserved for maximally helical decay, $\epsilon = 0$) fix how the spectral peak moves to larger scales, and the corrected volume-averaging identity $B_V^2 \propto \lambda^{-4}$ (Appendix B) converts the numerical $k^4$ slope into an analytic statement.

What would settle it

Run a fully dynamical electroweak field-theory simulation with enough dynamic range to resolve the small-wavenumber part of the spectrum after symmetry breaking, keeping both terms of Eq. (1) rather than only the Higgs-gradient term: if the energy spectrum at the largest resolved scales comes out as $k^3$ — or anything other than $k^4$ — the central claim fails. A cheaper check is the paper's own variance diagnostic: the volume-averaged field must fall as $B_V \propto \lambda^{-2}$ on large volumes, whereas a $\lambda^{-4}\ln\lambda$ falloff would signal the old $k^3$ spectrum.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Stated on the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the magnetic field produced by electroweak symmetry breaking has a $k^4$ energy spectrum at small wavenumbers, together with a helicity-variance spectrum $S_p(h) \propto k^2$ and vanishing mean helicity in the absence of CP violation. The field is computed from the Higgs-gradient term $\mathbf{B} = -i(2\sin\theta_w/g\eta^2)\,\nabla\Phi^\dagger \times \nabla\Phi$ on a lattice of independently random Higgs orientations (the Kibble mechanism), with the magnetic field obtained by integrating the associated gauge field around plaquettes; this flux algorithm automatically includes the $+2\pi$ monopole flux and the $-2\pi$ Z-string flux that cancels it, so the resulting field is exactly divergence-free and represents the state after monopole annihilation and string conversion. The paper further shows that its earlier analytical estimate of $k^3$ was wrong: evaluating the volume-averaged field with the correct window function gives $B_V^2 \propto \lambda^{-4}$, which is compatible only with a magnetic energy spectrum rising at least as $k^4$. Evolving the $k^4$ initial conditions through magnetohydrodynamic decay — with the Hosking integral conserved for non-helical fields ($\epsilon = 3/2$) and mean helicity conserved for maximally helical fields ($\epsilon = 0$) — yields peak fields $B \sim 10^{-13}$ G at $k_{\rm phys} \sim (1\,{\rm kpc})^{-1}$ for non-helical fields and $B \sim 10^{-10}$ G at $k_{\rm phys} \sim (1\,{\rm Mpc})^{-1}$ for maximally helical fields, with partially helical cases interpolating as $k_B \sim (1\,{\rm Mpc})^{-1} r_{h,EW}^{-1/3}$ and $B \sim 10^{-10} r_{h,EW}^{1/3}$ G.

Load-bearing premise

The prediction rests on the premise that the surviving magnetic field comes entirely from spatial variations of the Higgs field's direction — the electromagnetic gauge-field term $\nabla\times A$ is set to zero, and the conversion of Z-strings into electromagnetic flux is handled by a static flux rule rather than the actual electroweak dynamics — so if the omitted pieces generate a comparable large-scale field, the $k^4$ slope and the $10^{-13}$ G and $10^{-10}$ G numbers are not the full electroweak prediction.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Estimates of cosmological magnetic fields built on the earlier $k^3$ initial spectrum — including normalized amplitudes taken from field-theory simulations — should be re-derived with $k^4$ initial conditions, which is a steeper rise into the peak and changes how much power sits at the largest scales.
The predicted present-epoch fields ($10^{-13}$ G on kpc scales non-helical; $10^{-10}$ G on Mpc maximally helical; interpolated values for partial helicity when the initial relative helicity exceeds $10^{-9}$) sit within current observational bounds, so the scenario survives existing constraints while remaining potentially detectable.
Because the peak scale and amplitude after decay are independent of the initial spectral slope $s$ (for $s > \epsilon$), the field-strength forecasts are robust to the exact small-$k$ slope chosen; the headline numbers stand even if the detailed shape of the initial spectrum varies.
The nearly flat $k^{-2}S_p(h)$ helicity-variance spectrum means the initial conditions carry a well-defined Hosking integral $I_H$, so non-helical decay is governed by a conserved quantity and the late-time peak evolution has no free parameters in its scaling form.
If the initial relative helicity exceeds $10^{-9}$ the field becomes maximally helical before the present epoch and the coherence scale grows to Mpc, switching the decay law mid-course; below that threshold the field decays as if non-helical.

Reading between the lines

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

The $k^4$ small-$k$ slope is the steepest allowed for a causally generated magnetic field, so this result places electroweak symmetry breaking at the causal limit: a testable consequence is that a larger dynamical simulation should find the spectrum peaking cleanly at the horizon scale, with no extra power at smaller wavenumbers.
The same Kibble-mechanism-plus-plaquette-flux pipeline could be applied to other symmetry-breaking transitions with comparable vacuum manifolds; if the $k^4$ slope is a property of random vacuum orientation rather than electroweak specifics, analogous spectra should appear in any model with a similar vacuum structure.
If a future dynamical calculation keeps the neglected gauge-field term $\nabla\times A$ of Eq. (1), the slope could shift or the prefactor could change while the $k^4$ shape survives — a checkable extension is to evaluate Eq. (1) in full on the same random-Higgs ensembles used here.
The paper's correction of its predecessor's volume-averaging argument suggests that other $k^3$ results quoted in the cosmological magnetogenesis literature may need auditing wherever they rest on the same window-function estimate.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

Bottom line: this paper fixes a real error in the literature. The non-dynamical Kibble calculation shows the magnetic energy spectrum from electroweak symmetry breaking goes as k^4 at small k, not the k^3 claimed in Ref. [9]. The numerical convergence across 256^3, 512^3, and 1024^3 runs is convincing, and the corrected analytic argument in Appendix B shows where the old k^3 estimate went wrong. The result is parameter-free and the code and data are public, so the central spectral claim deserves to be taken seriously.

What is genuinely new: the plaquette-flux algorithm (Eq. 16) that includes string contributions to enforce div B = 0, the k^4 energy spectrum in Fig. 3, the nearly k^-2 compensated helicity variance spectrum in Fig. 4, and the corrected random-walk argument that rules out k^3 and forces n >= 4. None of this involves hidden fitting or circular reasoning. The paper is honest about what it does and does not do.

Two soft spots, both acknowledged in the text. First, the sharp n = 4 exponent is not proven analytically; Appendix B only excludes k^3 and establishes n >= 4, so the exact value rests on the numerics. That is a minor weakness because the numerics are clean and converged. Second, the paper sets the curl-of-A term in Eq. (1) to zero and models Z-string conversion geometrically rather than dynamically. The authors flag this in Sec. VI but do not estimate how large that neglected term is at small k. If it contributes comparably, the k^4 slope is not the full electroweak symmetry breaking prediction. I see this as a legitimate limitation, not a fatal flaw: the paper frames itself as a symmetry-based, non-dynamical estimate and is transparent about the conditionality.

The present-epoch field strengths, B ~ 10^-13 G on kpc scales and B ~ 10^-10 G on Mpc scales, inherit assumptions about the 10% magnetic energy fraction, horizon-scale coherence, and MHD decay prefactors with no quoted error bars. Again, this is stated clearly, but readers should treat those numbers as order-of-magnitude estimates, not robust predictions. The partially helical scaling in Sec. V.C is a useful interpolation between the two extremes.

Who this is for: anyone working on primordial magnetogenesis, initial conditions for MHD evolution, or the Kibble mechanism. It deserves a serious referee because the central result is reproducible and it corrects a published claim. My recommendation: send it to peer review. I would ask the authors to quantify the neglected curl-of-A term if they can and to give uncertainty ranges on the MHD prefactors, but neither should block acceptance.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies magnetic fields generated during electroweak symmetry breaking via a non-dynamical, Kibble-mechanism-based lattice algorithm. Using only the Higgs-gradient term of the electromagnetic field (Eq. 6) and a plaquette flux construction (Eqs. 13-16), it obtains a magnetic energy spectrum EM(k) ∝ k^4 at small wavenumbers (Fig. 3, Eq. 24), together with a nearly flat compensated helicity-variance spectrum k^-2 Sp(h) (Fig. 4). Appendix B revises an earlier analytic argument that gave k^3 and shows consistency with n ≥ 4. The paper then combines this initial spectrum with MHD decay laws and several astrophysical assumptions to estimate present-epoch fields: B ~ 10^-13 G on kpc scales for non-helical fields, B ~ 10^-10 G on Mpc scales for maximally helical fields, and interpolating scalings for partial helicity (Eqs. 34-35, 42).

Significance. If the spectral prediction holds, the paper corrects a long-standing expectation of EM(k) ∝ k^3 for electroweak-symmetry-breaking magnetic fields. The k^4 slope matters for the small-scale behavior of primordial fields and for the subsequent MHD evolution that determines present-epoch amplitudes. Strengths of the paper include the convergence of the numerical result over 256^3, 512^3, and 1024^3 meshes, the self-contained random-walk argument in Appendix B, the explicit treatment of the divergence-free condition, the open data and code availability statement, and the clear acknowledgment of several modeling limitations. The present-epoch field strengths, however, are conditional on a chain of assumptions—the dropped ∇×A term, the non-dynamical string-conversion model, horizon-scale initial coherence, and universal MHD prefactors—so the headline estimates should be read as order-of-magnitude scenarios rather than firm predictions.

major comments (4)

[Sec. III (Eq. (6)) and Sec. VI] The spectral prediction is computed from the Higgs-gradient term alone, with the ∇×A term in Eq. (1) set to zero. This is explicitly acknowledged as a limitation in Sec. VI, but no estimate is given for the relative magnitude of the omitted term on the small-k scales that anchor Eq. (24) and the later MHD evolution. If the gauge-field contribution is comparable on these scales, the central k^4 claim and the amplitudes in Eqs. (34)-(35) are not the full electroweak-symmetry-breaking prediction. The authors should either bound the neglected term using the dynamical simulations of Refs. [2-4] or state more narrowly that the result applies only to the Higgs-gradient contribution.
[Sec. IV (Eqs. (13)-(16))] The plaquette flux algorithm imposes geometrically the conversion of Z-strings into electromagnetic flux rather than deriving it from the dynamics of string decay. The paper cites Ref. [14] for this conversion, but it does not compare the large-scale spectrum produced by the algorithm with the spectrum obtained from a full dynamical electroweak simulation. Because the small-k slope is the central result, a validation of the algorithm against even one dynamical simulation, or an explicit argument for why the conversion dynamics cannot affect the slope, is needed.
[Appendix B (Eq. (B9))] The analytical random-walk argument excludes n = 3 and requires n ≥ 4, but it does not uniquely determine n = 4. The paper should state this explicitly: the sharp k^4 result rests on the convergence of the numerical spectra in Fig. 3 combined with the inequality, not on Appendix B alone. The current wording 'we must have E_M(k) ∝ k^n for n ≥ 4' and the subsequent claim that 'E_M ∝ k^3 does not follow' do not make this dependence on the numerics clear.
[Secs. V.B-V.E] The present-epoch numbers in Eqs. (34)-(35) depend on the assumed 10% magnetic energy fraction, horizon-scale initial coherence, and the universal prefactors collected in Table I, several of which are marked 'somewhat uncertain' in Sec. V.E. No error bars are attached to these inputs, so the quoted 10^-13 G and 10^-10 G values are conditional estimates. The authors should either propagate uncertainties from Table I and the coherence-scale assumption, or present these numbers as illustrative order-of-magnitude scenarios rather than as firm predictions.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. V.B (Eq. (27))] The symbol γ is used both for the temporal growth exponent in Eq. (27) and for a Hopf angle in Eq. (12); the text notes the clash, but renaming one of the two would improve readability.
[Figs. 3 and 4] The normalization of the compensated spectra is described only in the captions; adding the normalization integrals explicitly in the main text would help readers reproduce the amplitudes.
[Eqs. (19)-(22) and Eq. (B1)] The symbol V is used both for the lattice volume in the discrete spectral relations and for the averaging volume in the analytical argument of Appendix B; please distinguish these two uses.
[Sec. V.C (Eq. (39))] The derivation of τ* = τ_EW r_h,EW^{-3/2} from conservation of magnetic helicity omits the intermediate step connecting the helicity at τ* to the initial helicity; one explanatory sentence would make the result easier to follow.
[References] Reference [9] is cited both as the source of the earlier k^3 estimate and as a basis for the corrected argument in Appendix B; splitting the citations would make the corrected derivation easier to attribute.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the k^4 spectrum is produced by an unconstrained random-Hopf-angle simulation plus a self-contained analytic consistency argument, and the MHD decay laws are independent published results rather than fitted inputs.

full rationale

The central spectral claim EM(k) ∝ k^4 is not circular. The non-dynamical simulation assigns uniformly distributed Hopf angles with no fitted parameters, and the plaquette algorithm (Eqs. 13–16) is tested against the analytic monopole configuration (Eqs. 10–11). Appendix B gives a self-contained analytic argument: the volume-averaged field scales as BV ∝ λ^-2 from Eq. (6) by a random-walk estimate, and the standard window-function relation (B5) shows that a power-law spectrum with n=3 would give BV^2 ∝ λ^-4 ln λ, whereas n≥4 gives BV^2 ∝ λ^-4; combined with the numerically confirmed BV ∝ λ^-2 this excludes n=3, with the sharp k^4 slope coming from the simulation shown in Fig. 3. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The present-epoch amplitudes use MHD decay laws, conserved integrals, and universal prefactors from earlier published work (Refs. 20–32); although several of these references share authors with this paper, they are independent numerical and analytical results, not uniqueness theorems or ansätze invoked to forbid alternatives, so citing them is not circular. The paper explicitly flags its main modeling limitation in Sec. VI: 'we have ignored the contribution of the A term in (1)'. This is an incompleteness and correctness caveat, not a circularity, because the calculation is openly a characterization of the Higgs-gradient contribution under stated assumptions. The coherence-scale and 10% energy-density inputs are also stated assumptions in Sec. V.A, not outputs that are then used to prove themselves. Within its stated scope, the derivation chain is self-contained.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central k^4 spectral result itself has no fitted parameters: it follows from random uniform Hopf angles and the flux algorithm, with the analytic random-walk argument in App. B as independent support. The cosmological field-strength estimates, however, import several numerical inputs from earlier work, including the energy fraction, horizon coherence, and MHD exponents and prefactors, all acknowledged. No new particles or entities are introduced.

free parameters (3)

Magnetic energy fraction at electroweak epoch = ~0.1
Used to set the amplitude of EM(k, t_EW) in Eq. (26) and B_A(τ_EW) ~ 10^24 G; taken as an input from prior dynamical simulations [2-4], not fitted in this paper.
Initial coherence scale = 2π/k_EW ~ 1 cm (horizon at T_EW ~ 100 GeV)
Assumed in Sec. V.B for the present-epoch estimates; the authors flag it as an important assumption in Sec. VI.
MHD scaling prefactors C_Hk, C_Mk, C_HB, C_MB = C_Hk ≈ 7.1, C_Mk ≈ 8.3, C_HB ≈ 2.8, C_MB ≈ 2.8 (Table I)
Used in Secs. V.D-E to express decay laws through conserved Hosking and helicity integrals; values are empirical from earlier MHD simulations and acknowledged as uncertain.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Higgs VEV directions on the vacuum manifold S3 are uniformly distributed and uncorrelated between spatial domains (Kibble mechanism).
Sec. IV first paragraph; this is the basis for the random Hopf-angle lattice and for the large-scale spectrum.
domain assumption Topology requires electroweak magnetic monopoles connected by Z-strings; after annihilation the Z-strings convert to electromagnetic flux so the final magnetic field is divergence-free.
Secs. II-III and Ref. [14]; justifies constructing B from the Φ-gradient term plus string contributions.
domain assumption The initial coherence scale of the generated field is the electroweak Hubble scale and the initial magnetic energy fraction is about 10%.
Sec. V.B and Sec. VI; explicit assumption controlling the normalization of the present-epoch estimates.
domain assumption MHD decay of non-helical fields is governed by conservation of the Hosking integral I_H (ϵ = 3/2), and helical decay by conservation of mean helicity I_M (ϵ = 0).
Secs. V.B-D and Refs. [20-22,24-26]; these are empirical scaling laws from MHD turbulence, not derived in this paper.
ad hoc to paper The plaquette flux algorithm (Eqs. 13-16) captures the combined monopole and Z-string contribution without simulating the conversion dynamics.
Sec. IV; tested on the explicit monopole and against App. A, but the physical process is modeled statically.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spectra of magnetic fields from electroweak symmetry breaking." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FPWPOLMH

@misc{pith2026241200641,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spectra of magnetic fields from electroweak symmetry breaking},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FPWPOLMH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.00641}
}

abstract

We characterize magnetic fields produced during electroweak symmetry breaking by non-dynamical numerical simulations based on the Kibble mechanism. The generated magnetic fields were thought to have an energy spectrum $\propto k^3$ for small wavenumbers $k$, but here we show that it is actually a spectrum $\propto k^4$ along with characteristic fluctuations in the magnetic helicity. Using scaling results from MHD simulations for the evolution and assuming that the initial magnetic field is coherent on the electroweak Hubble scale, we estimate the magnetic field strength to be $\sim 10^{-13}\, \rmG$ on kpc scales at the present epoch for non-helical fields. For maximally helical fields we obtain $\sim 10^{-10}\, \rmG$ on Mpc scales. We also give scalings of these estimates for partially helical fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.00641 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Compensated magnetic energy spectra, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Compensated shell-integrated helicity variance spec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6. Log-log plot of volume averaged magnetic field, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

[9]

Vachaspati, Progress on cosmological magnetic fields, 11 Rept

T. Vachaspati, Progress on cosmological magnetic fields, 11 Rept. Prog. Phys. 84, 074901 (2021), arXiv:2010.10525 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2021
[14]

Patel and T

T. Patel and T. Vachaspati, Annihilation of electroweak dumbbells, JHEP 02, 164, arXiv:2311.00026 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[1]

Vachaspati, Magnetic fields from cosmological phase transitions, Phys

T. Vachaspati, Magnetic fields from cosmological phase transitions, Phys. Lett. B 265, 258 (1991)

1991
[2]

Magnetic field production during preheating at the electroweak scale

A. Diaz-Gil, J. Garcia-Bellido, M. Garcia Perez, and A. Gonzalez-Arroyo, Magnetic field production during preheating at the electroweak scale, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 241301 (2008), arXiv:0712.4263 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008
[3]

Primordial magnetic fields from preheating at the electroweak scale

A. Diaz-Gil, J. Garcia-Bellido, M. Garcia Perez, and A. Gonzalez-Arroyo, Primordial magnetic fields from preheating at the electroweak scale, JHEP 07, 043, arXiv:0805.4159 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv
[4]

Zhang, T

Y. Zhang, T. Vachaspati, and F. Ferrer, Magnetic field production at a first-order electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 100, 083006 (2019), arXiv:1902.02751 [hep- ph]

arXiv 2019
[5]

Grasso and H

D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein, Magnetic fields in the early universe, Phys. Rept. 348, 163 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0009061

arXiv 2001
[6]

L. M. Widrow, Origin of galactic and extragalactic mag- netic fields, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 775 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0207240

arXiv 2002

Show all 35 references

[7]

Durrer and A

R. Durrer and A. Neronov, Cosmological Magnetic Fields: Their Generation, Evolution and Observation, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 21, 62 (2013), arXiv:1303.7121 [astro-ph.CO]

2013 arXiv
[8]

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

K. Subramanian, The origin, evolution and signatures of primordial magnetic fields, Rept. Prog. Phys. 79, 076901 (2016), arXiv:1504.02311 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[10]

T. W. B. Kibble, Topology of Cosmic Domains and Strings, J. Phys. A 9, 1387 (1976)

1976
[11]

Vilenkin and E

A. Vilenkin and E. P. S. Shellard, Cosmic Strings and Other Topological Defects(Cambridge University Press, 2000)

2000
[12]

Nambu, String-Like Configurations in the Weinberg- Salam Theory, Nucl

Y. Nambu, String-Like Configurations in the Weinberg- Salam Theory, Nucl. Phys. B 130, 505 (1977)

1977
[13]

Patel and T

T. Patel and T. Vachaspati, Kibble mechanism for elec- troweak magnetic monopoles and magnetic fields, JHEP 01, 059, arXiv:2108.05357 [hep-ph]

arXiv
[15]

Brandenburg, A

Pencil Code Collaboration, A. Brandenburg, A. Jo- hansen, P. Bourdin, W. Dobler, W. Lyra, M. Rheinhardt, S. Bingert, N. Haugen, A. Mee, F. Gent, N. Babkovskaia, C.-C. Yang, T. Heinemann, B. Dintrans, D. Mitra, S. Candelaresi, J. Warnecke, P. K¨ apyl¨ a, A. Schreiber, P. Chatte...

2021 arXiv
[16]

G. W. Gibbons, M. E. Ortiz, F. Ruiz Ruiz, and T. M. Samols, Semilocal strings and monopoles, Nucl. Phys. B 385, 127 (1992), arXiv:hep-th/9203023

1992 arXiv
[17]

’t Hooft, Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge The- ories, Nucl

G. ’t Hooft, Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge The- ories, Nucl. Phys. B 79, 276 (1974)

1974
[18]

A. M. Polyakov, Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory, JETP Lett. 20, 194 (1974)

1974
[19]

Achucarro and T

A. Achucarro and T. Vachaspati, Semilocal and elec- troweak strings, Phys. Rept. 327, 347 (2000), arXiv:hep- ph/9904229

2000
[20]

D. N. Hosking and A. A. Schekochihin, Reconnection- Controlled Decay of Magnetohydrodynamic Turbulence and the Role of Invariants, Phys. Rev. X 11, 041005 (2021), arXiv:2012.01393 [physics.flu-dyn]

2021 arXiv
[21]

D. N. Hosking and A. A. Schekochihin, Cosmic-void observations reconciled with primordial magnetogenesis, Nat. Comm. 14, 7523 (2023), arXiv:2203.03573 [astro- ph.CO]

2023 arXiv
[22]

H. Zhou, R. Sharma, and A. Brandenburg, Scaling of the Hosking integral in decaying magnetically domi- nated turbulence, J. Plasma Phys. 88, 905880602 (2022), arXiv:2206.07513 [physics.plasm-ph]

2022 arXiv
[23]

Vachaspati, Estimate of the primordial magnetic field helicity, Phys

T. Vachaspati, Estimate of the primordial magnetic field helicity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 251302 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0101261

2001
[24]

Brandenburg and T

A. Brandenburg and T. Kahniashvili, Classes of hy- drodynamic and magnetohydrodynamic turbulent decay, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 055102 (2017), arXiv:1607.01360 [physics.flu-dyn]

2017 arXiv
[25]

Brandenburg, R

A. Brandenburg, R. Sharma, and T. Vachaspati, Inverse cascading for initial magnetohydrodynamic turbulence spectra between Saffman and Batchelor, J. Plasma Phys. 89, 905890606 (2023), arXiv:2307.04602 [physics.plasm- ph]

2023 arXiv
[26]

Brandenburg, T

A. Brandenburg, T. Kahniashvili, S. Mandal, A. Roper Pol, A. G. Tevzadze, and T. Vachaspati, Evolution of hydromagnetic turbulence from the elec- troweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 96, 123528 (2017), arXiv:1711.03804 [astro-ph.CO]

2017 arXiv
[27]

J. M. Cornwall, Speculations on primordial magnetic helicity, Phys. Rev. D 56, 6146 (1997), arXiv:hep- th/9704022

1997
[28]

Vachaspati and A

T. Vachaspati and A. Vilenkin, Cosmological chirality and magnetic fields from parity violating particle decays, Phys. Rev. D 103, 103528 (2021), arXiv:2101.06344 [hep- ph]

2021 arXiv
[29]

Brandenburg, A

A. Brandenburg, A. Neronov, and F. Vazza, Resistively controlled primordial magnetic turbulence decay, Astron. Astrophys. 687, A186 (2024), arXiv:2401.08569 [astro- ph.CO]

2024 arXiv
[30]

Banerjee and K

R. Banerjee and K. Jedamzik, Evolution of cosmic mag- netic fields: From the very early universe, to recombina- tion, to the present, Phys. Rev. D 70, 123003 (2004)

2004
[31]

Brandenburg and G

A. Brandenburg and G. Larsson, Turbulence with Mag- netic Helicity That Is Absent on Average, Atmosphere 14, 932 (2023), arXiv:2305.08769 [physics.plasm-ph]

2023 arXiv
[32]

Brandenburg and A

A. Brandenburg and A. Banerjee, Turbulent magnetic decay controlled by two conserved quantities, J. Plasma Phys. 91, E5 (2025), arXiv:2406.11798 [physics.plasm- ph]

2025 arXiv
[33]

Spectra of magnetic fields from electroweak sym- metry breaking

T. Vachaspati and A. Brandenburg, Datasets of “Spectra of magnetic fields from electroweak sym- metry breaking”, Zenodo 14796972 (v2025.01.03); see also http://norlx65.nordita.org/~brandenb/ proj/EW-B-statistics/ for easier access 10.5281/zen- odo.14796972 (2025)

2025 doi
[34]

Durrer and C

R. Durrer and C. Caprini, Primordial magnetic fields and causality, JCAP 11, 010, arXiv:astro-ph/0305059

arXiv
[35]

Olesen, Inverse cascades and primordial magnetic fields, Phys

P. Olesen, Inverse cascades and primordial magnetic fields, Phys. Lett. B 398, 321 (1997), arXiv:astro- ph/9610154 [astro-ph]

1997

Pith tools

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

[1] [9]

Vachaspati, Progress on cosmological magnetic fields, 11 Rept

T. Vachaspati, Progress on cosmological magnetic fields, 11 Rept. Prog. Phys. 84, 074901 (2021), arXiv:2010.10525 [astro-ph.CO]

arXiv 2021

[2] [14]

Patel and T

T. Patel and T. Vachaspati, Annihilation of electroweak dumbbells, JHEP 02, 164, arXiv:2311.00026 [hep-ph]

arXiv

[3] [1]

Vachaspati, Magnetic fields from cosmological phase transitions, Phys

T. Vachaspati, Magnetic fields from cosmological phase transitions, Phys. Lett. B 265, 258 (1991)

1991

[4] [2]

Magnetic field production during preheating at the electroweak scale

A. Diaz-Gil, J. Garcia-Bellido, M. Garcia Perez, and A. Gonzalez-Arroyo, Magnetic field production during preheating at the electroweak scale, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 241301 (2008), arXiv:0712.4263 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2008

[5] [3]

Primordial magnetic fields from preheating at the electroweak scale

A. Diaz-Gil, J. Garcia-Bellido, M. Garcia Perez, and A. Gonzalez-Arroyo, Primordial magnetic fields from preheating at the electroweak scale, JHEP 07, 043, arXiv:0805.4159 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv

[6] [4]

Zhang, T

Y. Zhang, T. Vachaspati, and F. Ferrer, Magnetic field production at a first-order electroweak phase transition, Phys. Rev. D 100, 083006 (2019), arXiv:1902.02751 [hep- ph]

arXiv 2019

[7] [5]

Grasso and H

D. Grasso and H. R. Rubinstein, Magnetic fields in the early universe, Phys. Rept. 348, 163 (2001), arXiv:astro- ph/0009061

arXiv 2001

[8] [6]

L. M. Widrow, Origin of galactic and extragalactic mag- netic fields, Rev. Mod. Phys. 74, 775 (2002), arXiv:astro- ph/0207240

arXiv 2002