Limits on Magnetized Quark-Nugget Dark Matter from Episodic Natural Events

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

My referee's report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached file titled "Response to Reviewer 1".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Distinguishing magnetized quark-nuggets (MQN) from episodic natural events sounds interesting and however rare, its positive result may be of large expectation value. However the claim that MQN can have primordial origin and play the role of dark matter needs serious study and proof. Such possibility goes beyond the standard cosmological paradigm and can hardly avoid involvement of BSM physics. Therefore authors should either provide extensive argumentation that MQN, can be created in the early Universe, survive to the present time and play the role of dark matter, which imply the cosmological data (on LSS and CMB first of all), or should remove 'dark matter' from the title and text and consider MQN effect, offering possible astrophysical MQN origin.

Author Response

See attached file titled "Response to Reviewer 2".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Motivated by Tatsumi’s speculation of ferromagnetic nuggets with strangeness, the authors did a series of researches (e.g., refs. 27 & 11) in order to verify that possibility by experiments and to know their formation. In this paper, they try to revisit their thoughts and to constrain the ferromagnetic-field strength by episodic event detected, to narrow down the uncertainty of the surface magnetic field.

Normal matter in everyday life, the basic stuff of which (atom) was posited by speculators even before Socrates, is bound by electromagnetic force, but both atomic nuclei and strange nuggets are by strong force. It could hence be simply to term normal matter as electric matter, and the strongly-interacting one as strong matter. As an analogy that normal matter could be microscopic (such as dust) as well as huge (ie., the Earth or even white dwarfs), strong matter can also be microscopic (atomic nucleus) and macroscopic (strange nugget, and even strange star). As in the triangle of quark flavours (arXiv200304506, published already by SCPMA), electron has to appear for isospin-symmetric nucleus (point “A”), but is absent for strange matter (point “S”). This is the cause that normal atomic matter is luminous, while strange matter is “dark” because of extremely low charge-to-mass ratio.

However, the above argument doesn’t mean that quarks have to be free in strange matter. In fact, the basic unit of strange matter could also be nucleon-like, called strangeon (rather than quarks), if the color coupling is still as strong as in atomic nucleus.

Nevertheless, it is attractive to experimentally search evidence for strange nugget as dark matter, and the authors propose a novel idea of magnetopause interaction between nugget and medium. Surely this is very interesting!

Additionally, rotating magnetized quark nugget interaction is considered, which is surely relevant to experimental detection. Although computational simulations are presented, however, an explanation with schematic demonstration of the interaction torque could be beneficial for readers.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

See attached file titled "Response to Reviewer 3".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Sirs,

        I have recently reviewed the manuscript, entitled «Limits on magnetized quark-nugget dark matter from episodic natural events» by J. Pace Van Devender, Aaron P. Van Devender, Peter Wilson, Benjamin F. Hammel, and Niall McGinley, submitted for publication to the journal UNIVERSE (Manuscript ID: universe-1069125).

        The article was rejected unquestionably, after, as usually, explaining to the authors, in detail, the negative and the weak points of the text, and clearly indicating to them the way they should revise, drastically shorten, and rewrite their text.

        In the revised version of the article the authors ignored almost all my recommendations. Beyond some peripheral changes in the introductory part of the revised version,

1. they appear reluctant to do any substantial changes of the text,
2. they retained the text’s initial form and their full argumentation,

• they retained the number of pages practically unchanged,

1. instead of shortening, they added a new figure and two new references,
2. they disagree with the reviewer even on the points the reviewer agrees with their text,
3. apart from their extended answer to the reviewer’ s report, they submitted, additionally, another quite extended unknown, and independent text (I only imagine, for supporting the text),

• strangely, they appear (and prefer) to believe that the whole method of reviewing, worldwide, can be replaced by some official correspondence, prior to submission, between the authors and other factors, independent of the reviewer(s).

In view of all the above, I decided that it is meaningless to prepare any answer to the authors on the revised version, because this answer would not differ at all from my first report.

I insist on my previous report on rejecting the article.

This is my final decision.

Reviewer 2 Report

All the comments are addressed and the revised version of the paper can be accepted for publication in the current form