Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 50 references

Ponderomotive Effects of Ultralight Dark Matter

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that ultralight dark matter shifts electron observables through a field-squared ponderomotive mechanism active only when the dark matter oscillates faster than the electron's motion, so electron g-2 experiments do not…

desk verdict A clear and mostly convincing classical rederivation of ultralight DM effects on g-2, but the decoupling claim below the cyclotron frequency is not fully established because the Penning trap's low-frequency modes are ignored. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.01725 v1 pith:62INUTBD submitted 2025-02-03 hep-ph

Kevin Zhou This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-ph
keywords ultralightdarkmatterphotondilatonaxionponderomotiveeffectelectrong-2classicalmechanicsprecisionmeasurement
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

Ultralight dark matter fields—a dark photon, a dilaton, or an axion—exert rapidly oscillating forces, torques, and mass shifts on electrons that average to zero at first order but shift electron properties at second order, in direct analogy to the ponderomotive force of laser optics. The paper's central claim is that these 'dark ponderomotive' shifts scale with the square of the dark matter amplitude, $\lambda = \rho_{\mathrm{DM}}/(m_{\mathrm{DM}}^2 m_e^2)$, and that they exist only when the field oscillates much faster than the electron's characteristic frequency, $m_{\mathrm{DM}} \gg \omega_0$. Using only classical mechanics, the paper derives explicit shifts for the electron mass, cyclotron frequency, and spin-precession frequency in the leading electron $g_e-2$ experiment, recovering some earlier field-theoretic results and correcting others. It concludes that, when the regime condition is imposed, these particular experiments do not beat astrophysical bounds; the previously claimed growth of sensitivity at low dark matter mass comes from a region where the effect shuts off. The constructive consequence is that other precision experiments with characteristic frequencies below about a megahertz could have interesting sensitivity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dark ponderomotive mechanism: a rapidly oscillating dark-matter field drives electron momentum at amplitude $\sim\sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{DM}}}/m_{\mathrm{DM}}$ while its first-order effects average to zero, so the leading observables are time-averaged second-order effects proportional to $\lambda = \rho_{\mathrm{DM}}/(m_{\mathrm{DM}}^2 m_e^2)$. The derivations run through the classical Lorentz force, the velocity–momentum relation including first relativistic corrections, and the relativistic spin-precession equation, with the isotropy identity $\langle(\Delta p\cdot\langle p\rangle)\Delta p\rangle = \tfrac13 \langle|\Delta p|^2\rangle\langle p\rangle$ fixing coefficients such as $-5/6$. The same machinery shows the shutoff: for $m_{\mathrm{DM}} \ll \omega_0$ the electron tracks the field adiabatically rather than building up $\Delta p \propto \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{DM}}}/m_{\mathrm{DM}}$.

What would settle it

A full calculation of a trapped electron's time-averaged cyclotron and spin-precession frequencies in a dark photon or dilaton background for $m_{\mathrm{DM}} \ll \omega_0$ would settle the central claim. If such a calculation, or a numerical simulation of the classical equations with a realistic trap potential, shows a $\lambda$-enhanced shift surviving in the adiabatic limit, the paper's negative conclusion fails; if it shows the shift vanishing, the low-mass sensitivity claims of Refs. [1–3] are refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a classical, nonrelativistic electron in an ultralight dark matter background jitters with momentum amplitude $\Delta p \sim q\epsilon \sqrt{\rho_{\mathrm{DM}}}/m_{\mathrm{DM}}$ for the dark photon, so time-averaged second-order observables pick up the combination $\lambda = \rho_{\mathrm{DM}}/(m_{\mathrm{DM}}^2 m_e^2)$. For the dark photon with kinetic mixing $\epsilon$, the paper finds $\delta m_e/m_e = \tfrac12 q^2\epsilon^2\lambda$, $\delta\omega_c/\omega_c = -\tfrac56 q^2\epsilon^2\lambda$, and $\delta\omega_s/\omega_s = -\tfrac12 q^2\epsilon^2\lambda$. For a dilaton with scalar coupling $g_s$ it finds $\delta\omega_c/\omega_c = \delta\omega_s/\omega_s = g_s^2\lambda$, plus a mass shift $\delta m_e/m_e = \tfrac32 g_s^2\lambda v_{\mathrm{DM}}^2$ from gradient forces; for the axion the leading electron effect is the cross term $\delta\omega_s/\omega_s = g_d \bar g_\gamma\lambda$ involving both the axion-fermion and axion-photon couplings. The crucial condition is $m_{\mathrm{DM}} \gg \omega_0$: when the dark matter oscillates slower than the electron's motional frequency, the electron adiabatically follows the field and the effect decouples. Since numerically $\lambda \simeq (3\times 10^{-9}\,\mathrm{eV}/m_{\mathrm{DM}})^2$ in the regime where the effect exists, the paper concludes the shifts are weaker than the vacuum one-loop correction and therefore subdominant to astrophysical bounds.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that g-2 experiments cannot beat astrophysical bounds relies on the assumption that for dark matter masses far below the electron's motional frequency ($m_{\mathrm{DM}} \ll \omega_0$) the effect decouples because the electron adiabatically tracks the slowly oscillating field, so no $\lambda$-enhanced shift remains; the paper argues this in Sec. II B by comparing free oscillation over one dark-matter period with adiabatic response to a slow drive, but it is not proved by a full trap calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Electron $g_e-2$ experiments, with $\omega_0\sim\,\mathrm{meV}$, should see no $\lambda$-enhanced dark matter shift for $m_{\mathrm{DM}}<\omega_0$; in the allowed regime $m_{\mathrm{DM}}\gg\omega_0$ the effect is too small to beat astrophysical bounds.
  • The dark-photon coefficients are $\delta\omega_c/\omega_c=-\tfrac56 q^2\epsilon^2\lambda$ and $\delta\omega_s/\omega_s=-\tfrac12 q^2\epsilon^2\lambda$, correcting the earlier $\delta\omega_s$ by a factor of two; the paper's axion derivative coupling produces no shift at $O(g_d^2\lambda)$ to the spin-precession frequency, contrary to Refs. [2,3].
  • A non-derivative pseudoscalar axion coupling appears to shift the electron mass by $g_p^2\lambda/2$, but a chiral field redefinition shows the derivative-coupling counterpart cancels this, so quadratic terms in the Lagrangian and quadratic effects of linear terms must be treated together.
  • For the axion the leading electron-observable effect is $\delta\omega_s/\omega_s = g_d\bar g_\gamma\lambda$, requiring both axion-fermion and axion-photon couplings.
  • Ponderomotive signatures are broadband, zero-frequency, and modulated only by the dark matter amplitude, coherence time, shielding, and relative velocity, so experiments with characteristic frequencies below about a megahertz—such as equivalence-principle tests—are the promising targets.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the adiabatic-decoupling premise is right, searches should be designed around the condition $\omega_0 < m_{\mathrm{DM}}$, not around the assumption of growing low-mass sensitivity; a storage-ring or bound-electron experiment with relativistic velocities ($v_e \sim \alpha$ or $v_e\approx 1$) is the natural next target because the paper only computes nonrelativistic electron effects.
  • The same second-order logic should apply to other Standard Model fermions and to spatially varying dark matter fields; the paper's remark that polarized or moving dark matter produces a dark analogue of the ordinary ponderomotive force suggests orientation-dependent and diurnally modulated signals that a future experiment could isolate.
  • The axion spin-precession discrepancy with Refs. [2,3] echoes an older finite-temperature controversy about background-dependent spinors; a single derivation that fixes the wavefunction renormalization prescription would settle whether the physical coefficient is zero or $g_d^2\lambda v_{\mathrm{DM}}^2/3$.
  • A practical extension would be to compute the same ponderomotive shifts for a realistic Penning trap with shielding and anharmonic potentials; the paper's ideal calculation neglects shielding and assumes an unpolarized, isotropic dark photon, so the exact experimental reach depends on those details.
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.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper argues that ultralight dark matter (dark photon, dilaton, and axion) can induce time-averaged, second-order 'ponderomotive' shifts in the energy, cyclotron frequency, and spin precession frequency of an electron in a g-2 experiment, with fractional shifts scaling as g^2 λ = g^2 ρ_DM/(m_DM^2 m_e^2). The derivations are classical, with alternative checks in Sec. II.C, and the paper claims that these effects exist only for m_DM >> ω0, where ω0 is the electron's characteristic frequency (≈ meV in the cited experiment). It further claims that, in this regime, the resulting constraints do not beat astrophysical bounds, contradicting the stronger sensitivity claimed in Refs. [1–3] for m_DM << ω0. The paper also reports a new axion-photon cross-term shift δω_s/ω_s = g_d \bar{g}_γ λ and argues that the axion derivative coupling alone produces no O(g_d^2 λ v_DM^2) precession-frequency shift.

Significance. If correct, the paper provides a transparent classical unification of several prior field-theoretic results, with the added clarity that the quadratic-in-amplitude scaling is the familiar ponderomotive effect, not a new Bose-enhancement phenomenon. The explicit, parameter-free derivations and the cross-check by independent methods in Sec. II.C are genuine strengths, as is the honest comparison with the numerical discrepancies in Ref. [1] and the parametric discrepancy with Refs. [2,3]. The central negative conclusion—that the specific g-2 experiments do not beat astrophysical bounds—would be important, because it directly contests recent claims of strong sensitivity. However, the paper's central regime-boundary claim (m_DM >> ω0) rests on an incomplete treatment of the Penning trap's low-frequency modes, and the axion discrepancy is left as speculation rather than a resolved error in the prior work.

major comments (2)
  1. [II.B and II.C] The decoupling argument for m_DM << ω0 is not established, because the electron in the actual experiment is confined by a Penning trap with multiple characteristic frequencies: the cyclotron frequency ω_c (≈ meV in the paper's notation) and much lower axial and magnetron frequencies ω_z, ω_m (kHz–MHz). For a driven harmonic oscillator with drive frequency Ω above its resonance, the velocity amplitude scales as F/(m Ω), which is the same free-particle scaling that produces the λ-enhanced shifts. Thus in the window ω_m << m_DM << ω_c, the response is not adiabatic and the λ shift need not vanish. The paper's Sec. II.B argument, based on an effectively constant force and a single trap stiffness k, does not cover this window. Moreover, the detailed derivation in Sec. II.C, particularly Eq. (28), assumes ΔF ≃ qεE′ with the magnetic-force correction qΔv×B subdominant by ω_c/m_DM; this expansion fails when m_DM << ω_c. Since the claim that effects exist only for m_DM >> ω0 is the basis for correcting Refs. [1–3] and for the negative experimental conclusion, a full solution of the trap dynamics in the intermediate regime is required to justify the central claim.
  2. [V.A] The paper's conclusion that the axion derivative coupling alone gives no O(g_d^2 λ v_DM^2) shift in δω_s directly contradicts Refs. [2,3], which find δω_s/ω_s = g_d^2 λ v_DM^2/3. The rotating-frame argument leading to Eq. (75) shows that the magnitude of the average spin is reduced, but the precession frequency is unchanged; this is a clean classical statement, but it is also a nontrivial physical claim about the measured observable. Because the paper's stated purpose is to correct prior work, the discrepancy should be resolved by directly computing the experimental observable (e.g., the averaged spin projection in the trap) and by explicitly identifying where the field-theoretic calculation in Refs. [2,3] goes wrong. The present text only speculates about background-dependent spinors, which is insufficient for a claim that a published parametric result is incorrect.
minor comments (4)
  1. [IV.C] In Eq. (84), the symbol g_p appears in the combination g_p ˙a v, but the preceding torque, Eq. (71), and the final result, Eq. (85), both use g_d; this appears to be a typographical error.
  2. [I] The statement that the characteristic frequency is ω0 ∼ ωc ∼ ωs ∼ meV is numerically high by about an order of magnitude: for the Harvard electron g-2 experiment, ω_c = eB/m_e with B ≈ 5 T gives ω_c ≈ 2π × 100 GHz ≈ 4×10^-4 eV. The qualitative argument is unaffected, but the quoted value should be corrected.
  3. [III.C] The second contribution to the dilaton mass shift, Eq. (66), relies on the electron's displacement Δx being given by g_s ∇φ/(m_e m_DM^2). This relation is asserted without derivation; a short explanation of why the displacement is opposite in sign to the acceleration and why the response is ∝ 1/m_DM^2 would improve readability.
  4. [V.B] The experimental implications discussion names satellite tests, torsion pendulums, and atom interferometers as promising directions, but does not give even order-of-magnitude estimates of the expected signal sizes. A few numerical examples would help the reader assess whether the proposed new searches are actually competitive.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the lambda-enhanced shifts are derived from stated equations of motion, and the only self-citation supplies an independently derived Hamiltonian, not the target result.

full rationale

The claimed g^2 lambda shifts are derived, not fitted: lambda is defined from input dark-matter density and mass, and every numerical coefficient follows from the displayed equations of motion. For the dark photon, delta m_e/m_e = <|Delta p|^2>/(2 m_e^2) with Delta p = -q epsilon A' and <|A'|^2> = rho_DM/(3 m_DM^2) yields Eq. (18); Eq. (22) gives delta omega_c/omega_c = -(5/6) q^2 epsilon^2 lambda through the relativistic velocity-momentum relation and the stated unpolarized isotropy average; and Eqs. (30)-(31) give delta omega_s/omega_s = -(1/2) q^2 epsilon^2 lambda from the Thomas equation. The dilaton results follow from replacing m_e by m_e + g_s phi in the Pauli Hamiltonian and averaging, with the O(v_DM^2) mass shift obtained from the derived Hamiltonian (60). The axion section imports the nonrelativistic Hamiltonian (69) from Ref. [21], which shares an author with this paper; that prior work is a parameter-free derivation from the Dirac equation whose stated assumptions do not include the target g-2 shift, so it is independent support rather than a circular load. The later axion cross-term (85) is then a short calculation from the velocity-dependent torque. The genuinely loose step is the m_DM << omega_0 decoupling in Sec. II B: it is argued by the adiabatic-tracking estimate v ~ m_DM sqrt(rho_DM) rather than proved by a full Penning-trap calculation, so the negative conclusion about Refs. [1-3] rests on an unproven assumption; the discrepancy with Refs. [2,3] is also left as speculation in Sec. V A. These are correctness or robustness concerns, not circular reductions: no prediction here is equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted. The calculations rely on physical inputs from the Standard Model and DM Lagrangian plus standard assumptions about classical DM fields. Key axioms include classical electron dynamics, coherent oscillating field with energy density rho_DM, unpolarized dark photon averaging, the m_DM >> omega_0 regime, and use of a previously derived axion Hamiltonian. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Electron motion and spin are described classically by the Lorentz force and the BMT/Thomas equation.
    Used in Sec. II A to derive shifts in cyclotron and spin precession frequencies; assumes quantum spin can be treated as a classical vector at leading order.
  • domain assumption Ultralight DM is a coherent classical oscillating field with energy density rho_DM; modes oscillate at omega ~ m_DM and have gradients O(m_DM v_DM).
    Standard treatment of axion and dark photon DM, used in Secs. II and III to relate field amplitudes to rho_DM.
  • domain assumption The dark photon background is unpolarized, so average A'_i A'_j = rho_DM/(3 m_DM^2) delta_ij.
    Used in Eq. (9) and throughout Sec. II B; real DM can be polarized, which would make the shifts orientation-dependent.
  • domain assumption Ponderomotive shifts exist only when m_DM >> omega_0, where the electron is effectively free over an oscillation period; for m_DM << omega_0 the field is adiabatic and decouples.
    Load-bearing for the negative g-2 conclusion, argued in Sec. II B by comparing velocity buildup versus adiabatic tracking; not proven by a full trap calculation.
  • domain assumption The nonrelativistic Hamiltonian for derivative-coupled axion fermions, Eq. (69), is taken from the author's earlier Ref [21].
    Used in Sec. IV A to derive axion forces and torques; an independent published derivation but not re-derived in this paper.
  • standard math The dilaton nonrelativistic Hamiltonian is derived via Pauli elimination with a norm-preserving wavefunction, following Appendix E of Ref [21].
    Used in Sec. III B to produce Eq. (60); the method is standard, but the specific norm-preserving treatment is cited from Ref [21].
  • domain assumption The electron g-factor is set to 2 throughout.
    Used to simplify Thomas' equation in Secs. II-IV; since g_e - 2 is small, this should not affect parametric scaling, but the paper does not compute the anomaly shift directly.
  • domain assumption Shielding, dark photon polarization orientation, and the DM wind are neglected in the ideal calculations.
    Stated in Secs. II B and V; in real g-2 experiments these can suppress or orient the effects, so the quoted numbers are idealized.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ponderomotive Effects of Ultralight Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/62INUTBD

@misc{pith2026250201725,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ponderomotive Effects of Ultralight Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/62INUTBD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.01725}
}
abstract

I exhibit a new class of quadratic effects of ultralight dark matter. Axions, dark photons, and dilatons can exert rapidly oscillating forces, torques, and mass shifts on Standard Model particles. These effects average to zero at first order, but shift particle properties at second order, in analogy to the ponderomotive force in optics. Remarkably, these effects scale with the square of the amplitude of the dark matter field, even when the field's direct physical effects depend only on its derivatives. I calculate the resulting observables in electron $g_e - 2$ experiments using classical mechanics, recovering results previously derived using field theory. When considered properly, these particular experiments do not beat astrophysical bounds, but other precision experiments may have interesting sensitivity.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Effect of Ultralight Dark Matter on $g-2$ of the Electron

    J. L. Evans, “Effect of Ultralight Dark Matter on g − 2 of the Electron,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 132 no. 9, (2024) 091801 , arXiv:2302.08746 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    Electron $g-2$ corrections from axion dark matter

    A. Arza and J. Evans, “Electron g − 2 corrections from axion dark matter,” arXiv:2308.05375 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  3. [3]

    Effective two-loop background contributions to $g_e-2$

    J. L. Evans and J.-Y. Lyu, “Effective two-loop background contributions to ge − 2,” arXiv:2410.10715 [hep-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv

  4. [4]

    Quant um Electrodynamics at Finite Temperature,

    J. F. Donoghue, B. R. Holstein, and R. W. Robinett, “Quant um Electrodynamics at Finite Temperature,” Annals Phys. 164 (1985) 233 . [Erratum: Annals Phys. 172, 483 (1986)]

    work page 1985

  5. [5]

    Containment of a fully-ionized plasma by radio-frequency fields,

    H. Boot, S. Self, and R. R-Shersby-Harvie, “Containment of a fully-ionized plasma by radio-frequency fields,” International Journal Of Electronics 4 no. 5, (1958) 434–453

    work page 1958

  6. [6]

    Classical theory of t he scattering of intense laser radiation by free electrons,

    E. S. Sarachik and G. T. Schappert, “Classical theory of t he scattering of intense laser radiation by free electrons, ” Phys. Rev. D 1 (May, 1970) 2738–2753

    work page 1970

  7. [7]

    Zangwill, Modern Electrodynamics

    A. Zangwill, Modern Electrodynamics. Cambridge University Press, 2013

    work page 2013

  8. [8]

    Meas urement of the Electron Magnetic Moment,

    X. Fan, T. G. Myers, B. A. D. Sukra, and G. Gabrielse, “Meas urement of the Electron Magnetic Moment,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 no. 7, (2023) 071801 , arXiv:2209.13084 [physics.atom-ph]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Fan, An Improved Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment

    X. Fan, An Improved Measurement of the Electron Magnetic Moment . PhD thesis, Harvard University, 2022

    2022

  2. [10]

    Dark photon limits: A handbook,

    A. Caputo, A. J. Millar, C. A. J. O’Hare, and E. Vitaglian o, “Dark photon limits: A handbook,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 9, (2021) 095029 , arXiv:2105.04565 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Earth as a transducer for dark-photon dark-matter detection,

    M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, D. F. J. Kimball, and S. Kali a, “Earth as a transducer for dark-photon dark-matter detection,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 7, (2021) 075023 , arXiv:2106.00022 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  4. [12]

    V. B. Berestetskii, E. M. Lifshitz, and L. P. Pitaevskii , Quantum Electrodynamics, vol. 4 of Course of Theoretical Physics . Butterworth-Heinemann, 1982

    1982

  5. [13]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics. Wiley, 1999

    1999

  6. [14]

    QED and Lasers: A Tutorial,

    T. Heinzl, “QED and Lasers: A Tutorial,” arXiv:2203.01245 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Trajectory and Mass Shift o f a Classical Electron in a Radiation Pulse,

    J. H. Eberly and A. Sleeper, “Trajectory and Mass Shift o f a Classical Electron in a Radiation Pulse,” Phys. Rev. 176 (1968) 1570–1573

    1968

  8. [16]

    Positive and negative effect ive mass of classical particles in oscillatory and static fie lds,

    I. Y. Dodin and N. J. Fisch, “Positive and negative effect ive mass of classical particles in oscillatory and static fie lds,” Phys. Rev. E 77 (Mar, 2008) 036402

    2008

  9. [17]

    Int ensity-Dependent Electron Mass Shift in a Laser Field: Existence, Universality, and Detection,

    C. Harvey, T. Heinzl, A. Ilderton, and M. Marklund, “Int ensity-Dependent Electron Mass Shift in a Laser Field: Existence, Universality, and Detection,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 109 (2012) 100402 , arXiv:1203.6077 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Effective mass s ignatures in multiphoton pair production,

    C. Kohlf¨ urst, H. Gies, and R. Alkofer, “Effective mass s ignatures in multiphoton pair production,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 112 (2014) 050402 , arXiv:1310.7836 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Evans, private communication

    J. Evans, private communication

  12. [20]

    Radio for hidden-photon dark matter detection,

    S. Chaudhuri, P. W. Graham, K. Irwin, J. Mardon, S. Rajen dran, and Y. Zhao, “Radio for hidden-photon dark matter detection,” Phys. Rev. D 92 no. 7, (2015) 075012 , arXiv:1411.7382 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Physic al signatures of fermion-coupled axion dark matter,

    A. Berlin, A. J. Millar, T. Trickle, and K. Zhou, “Physic al signatures of fermion-coupled axion dark matter,” JHEP 05 (2024) 314 , arXiv:2312.11601 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Relativistic spin dynamics conditione d by dark matter axions,

    A. J. Silenko, “Relativistic spin dynamics conditione d by dark matter axions,” Eur. Phys. J. C 82 no. 10, (2022) 856 , arXiv:2109.05576 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    On the fermionic couplings of axionic dark ma tter,

    C. Smith, “On the fermionic couplings of axionic dark ma tter,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) 12 , arXiv:2302.01142 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Solutions to Axion Electrod ynamics in Various Geometries,

    J. Ouellet and Z. Bogorad, “Solutions to Axion Electrod ynamics in Various Geometries,” Phys. Rev. D 99 no. 5, (2019) 055010 , arXiv:1809.10709 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Renormalization and radiative corrections at finite temperature,

    J. F. Donoghue and B. R. Holstein, “Renormalization and radiative corrections at finite temperature,” Phys. Rev. D 28 (Jul, 1983) 340–348 . 17

    1983

  18. [26]

    Temperature-dependent wave function re normalization and weak interaction rates prior to nucleosynthesis,

    R. F. Sawyer, “Temperature-dependent wave function re normalization and weak interaction rates prior to nucleosynthesis,” Phys. Rev. D 53 (Apr, 1996) 4232–4236

    1996

  19. [27]

    Finite temperature wave-function reno rmalization: A comparative analysis,

    I. A. Chapman, “Finite temperature wave-function reno rmalization: A comparative analysis,” Phys. Rev. D 55 (May, 1997) 6287–6291

    1997

  20. [28]

    dark matter wind

    gives ⟨Ω ⟩ ≃ q me ( B − 1 2m2 e ⟨(∆ p · B)∆ p + (∆ p × B) × ∆ p⟩ ) (31) Using ( 9), the terms in brackets simplify to 1 /3 and 2/3 times ⟨|∆ p|2⟩B, respectively, recovering the δωs found before. We also learn that 2 /3 of the shift is due to Thomas precession. 7 III. DILATON N...

  21. [29]

    Finite temperature correc tions to weak rates prior to nucleosynthesis,

    L. S. Brown and R. F. Sawyer, “Finite temperature correc tions to weak rates prior to nucleosynthesis,” Phys. Rev. D 63 (Feb, 2001) 083503

    2001

  22. [30]

    Wave function renormalization at finite temperature,

    S. Esposito, G. Mangano, G. Miele, and O. Pisanti, “Wave function renormalization at finite temperature,” Phys. Rev. D 58 (Oct, 1998) 105023

    1998

  23. [31]

    Nuclear Reaction Network for Primordial Nucleosynthesis: a detailed analysis of rates, uncertaint ies and light nuclei yields,

    P. D. Serpico, S. Esposito, F. Iocco, G. Mangano, G. Miel e, and O. Pisanti, “Nuclear Reaction Network for Primordial Nucleosynthesis: a detailed analysis of rates, uncertaint ies and light nuclei yields,” JCAP 12 (2004) 010 , arXiv:astro-ph/0408076

    2004 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Precision Prediction for t he Big-Bang Abundance of Primordial Helium,

    R. E. Lopez and M. S. Turner, “Precision Prediction for t he Big-Bang Abundance of Primordial Helium,” Phys. Rev. D 59 (1999) 103502 , arXiv:astro-ph/9807279

    1999 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Precisi on big bang nucleosynthesis with improved Helium-4 predict ions,

    C. Pitrou, A. Coc, J.-P. Uzan, and E. Vangioni, “Precisi on big bang nucleosynthesis with improved Helium-4 predict ions,” Phys. Rept. 754 (2018) 1–66 , arXiv:1801.08023 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Primordial Nucleosynthesis: from precision cosmolo gy to fundamental physics,

    F. Iocco, G. Mangano, G. Miele, O. Pisanti, and P. D. Serp ico, “Primordial Nucleosynthesis: from precision cosmolo gy to fundamental physics,” Phys. Rept. 472 (2009) 1–76 , arXiv:0809.0631 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Relativistic ponderomotive Hamiltonian of a Dirac particle in a vacuum la ser field,

    D. E. Ruiz, C. L. Ellison, and I. Y. Dodin, “Relativistic ponderomotive Hamiltonian of a Dirac particle in a vacuum la ser field,” Phys. Rev. A 92 (Dec, 2015) 062124

    2015

  28. [36]

    Relativistic Pond eromotive Force, Uphill Acceleration, and Transition to Ch aos,

    D. Bauer, P. Mulser, and W. H. Steeb, “Relativistic Pond eromotive Force, Uphill Acceleration, and Transition to Ch aos,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (Dec, 1995) 4622–4625

    1995

  29. [37]

    The phenomenology of quadratically coupled ultra l ight dark matter,

    A. Banerjee, G. Perez, M. Safronova, I. Savoray, and A. S halit, “The phenomenology of quadratically coupled ultra l ight dark matter,” JHEP 10 (2023) 042 , arXiv:2211.05174 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Dark Matter Direct Detection with Accelerometers,

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran, and W . A. Terrano, “Dark Matter Direct Detection with Accelerometers,” Phys. Rev. D 93 no. 7, (2016) 075029 , arXiv:1512.06165 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Oscillations of atomic energy leve ls induced by QCD axion dark matter,

    H. Kim and G. Perez, “Oscillations of atomic energy leve ls induced by QCD axion dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 1, (2024) 015005 , arXiv:2205.12988 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Blowing in the Dar k Matter Wind,

    H. Day, D. Liu, M. A. Luty, and Y. Zhao, “Blowing in the Dar k Matter Wind,” JHEP 07 (2024) 136 , arXiv:2312.13345 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    effective

    by adding a O(vevDM ) torque due to the dilaton gradient, which to my knowledge has not been previously pointed out, and may be of interest for precision ex periments with relativistic electrons. Next, to compute the acceleration we first define the velocity oper ator by v =i[H,...

  34. [42]

    Oscillating nuclear charge radii as sensors for ultralight dark matter,

    A. Banerjee, D. Budker, M. Filzinger, N. Huntemann, G. P az, G. Perez, S. Porsev, and M. Safronova, “Oscillating nuclear charge radii as sensors for ultralight dark matter, ” arXiv:2301.10784 [hep-ph]

  35. [43]

    Fluctuations of atom ic energy levels due to axion dark matter,

    V. V. Flambaum and I. B. Samsonov, “Fluctuations of atom ic energy levels due to axion dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 108 no. 7, (2023) 075022 , arXiv:2302.11167 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Quadratic coupling of the axion to photons,

    C. Beadle, S. A. R. Ellis, J. Quevillon, and P. N. Hoa Vuon g, “Quadratic coupling of the axion to photons,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 3, (2024) 035019 , arXiv:2307.10362 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Probing a n ultralight QCD axion with electromagnetic quadratic interaction,

    H. Kim, A. Lenoci, G. Perez, and W. Ratzinger, “Probing a n ultralight QCD axion with electromagnetic quadratic interaction,” Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 1, (2024) 015030 , arXiv:2307.14962 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Axion Bound s from Quantum Technology,

    M. Bauer, S. Chakraborti, and G. Rostagni, “Axion Bound s from Quantum Technology,” arXiv:2408.06412 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Probing axions with neutron star i nspirals and other stellar processes,

    A. Hook and J. Huang, “Probing axions with neutron star i nspirals and other stellar processes,” JHEP 06 (2018) 036 , arXiv:1708.08464 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  40. [48]

    White dwarfs as a probe of exceptionally light QCD axions,

    R. Balkin, J. Serra, K. Springmann, S. Stelzl, and A. Wei ler, “White dwarfs as a probe of exceptionally light QCD axions,” Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 9, (2024) 095032 , arXiv:2211.02661 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Constraining Light QCD Axions with Isolated Neutro n Star Cooling,

    A. G´ omez-Ba˜ n´ on, K. Bartnick, K. Springmann, and J. A. Pons, “Constraining Light QCD Axions with Isolated Neutro n Star Cooling,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 133 no. 25, (2024) 251002 , arXiv:2408.07740 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Pi in the Sky: Neutron Stars with Exceptionally Light QCD Axions,

    M. Kumamoto, J. Huang, C. Drischler, M. Baryakhtar, and S. Reddy, “Pi in the Sky: Neutron Stars with Exceptionally Light QCD Axions,” arXiv:2410.21590 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 9, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.