Cited by 79Quantum and Classical ElectrodynamicsParticle physics theoretical and experimental studiesCosmology and Gravitation Theories

Photon-Mass Bound Destroyed by Vortices

Open access
Adelberger, Eric, Dvali, Gia, Gruzinov, Andrei·2007·Physical Review Letters

Abstract

The Particle Data Group gives an upper bound on the photon mass $m<2\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}16}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{eV}$ from a laboratory experiment and lists, but does not adopt, an astronomical bound $m<3\ifmmode\times\else\texttimes\fi{}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}27}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{eV}$, both of which are based on the plausible assumption of large galactic vector potential. We argue that the interpretations of these experiments should be changed, which alters significantly the bounds on $m$. If $m$ arises from a Higgs effect, both limits are invalid because the Proca vector potential of the galactic magnetic field may be neutralized by vortices giving a large-scale magnetic field that is effectively Maxwellian. If, on the other hand, the galactic magnetic field is in the Proca regime, the very existence of the observed large-scale magnetic field gives ${m}^{\ensuremath{-}1}\ensuremath{\gtrsim}1\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{kpc}$, or $m\ensuremath{\lesssim}{10}^{\ensuremath{-}26}\text{ }\text{ }\mathrm{eV}$.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1103/physrevlett.98.010402

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A much stronger but very speculative constraint comes from observations of the magnetic field on galactic scales, which is m_A < 10^-59 g, or λ_A > 3 × 10^21 cm.

    “A much stronger but very speculative constraint comes from observations of the magnetic field on galactic scales, which is m A &lt; 10 -59 g, or λ A &gt; 3 × 10 21 cm [52].”

    From Electrodynamics on cosmological scales (2016) · cites this paper as [52]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Adelberger, E., Dvali, G., & Gruzinov, A.
Affiliations
  • University of Washington (US)
  • New York University (US)
Venue
Physical Review Letters
Published
2007-01-04
Volume
98
Issue
1
Pages
010402-010402
ISSN
  • 0031-9007 (ISSN-L)
  • 1079-7114
OpenAlex
W1972118117
Cited by
79
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
3.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Physical Review Letters (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University) (submittedVersion)
  • CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) (submittedVersion)
  • arXiv (Cornell University)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Atomic and Molecular Physics, and Optics › Quantum and Classical Electrodynamics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Nuclear and High Energy Physics › Particle physics theoretical and experimental studies
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Astronomy and Astrophysics › Cosmology and Gravitation Theories
Keywords
photon mass, galactic magnetic fields, magnetic vortices, Higgs mechanism, large-scale magnetic fields

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review