AG-2026.04-1525·astro-ph.CO·cross-listed: hep-ph
JWST Constraints on Primordial Magnetic Fields
Authors
- Malcolm Fairbairn
- María Olalla Olea-Romacho
- Juan Urrutia
- Ville Vaskonen
Abstract
Primordial magnetic fields (PMFs) enhance small-scale structure formation through the Lorentz force acting on baryons, boosting the abundance of low-mass halos and their hosted galaxies. We show that the reionisation history calibrated with the UV luminosity function (UVLF) provides stringent bounds: strong PMFs induce a characteristic double reionisation at $z \approx 24$ that is incompatible with CMB measurements of the optical depth, yielding $\sqrt{\left\langle B^2 \right\rangle} < 0.27\,{\rm nG}$ and $< 0.18\,{\rm nG}$ for $n_B = -2$ and $n_B = 2$ respectively at $95\%\,{\rm CL}$ using Planck priors on $τ$. This establishes early galaxy observables as among the most sensitive probes of PMFs in Gaussian, non-helical scenarios.
Submitted
27 April 20261 month ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2604.24835
Summary
JWST observations of early galaxies constrain primordial magnetic fields by showing that strong magnetic fields would cause reionization patterns incompatible with CMB data, limiting their strength to less than 0.27 nanoGauss.
- Primordial magnetic fields—hypothetical relics from the early universe—would amplify small structure formation and create a distinctive "double reionization" signature that JWST can now rule out.
- By comparing predicted galaxy populations under different magnetic field strengths to actual UV observations, researchers tightened the upper limit on these fields by roughly 5-fold compared to previous constraints.
- Early galaxy data is now among the most sensitive tools for testing primordial magnetism, competing with or surpassing traditional CMB measurements for this particular physics.
curious · generated by claude-haiku-4-5
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.