Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Quantum and Material Effects in Undulator-Based LSW Searches for Dark Photons

T0 review · 6 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A detector placed outside a synchrotron's shielding could probe dark photons orders of magnitude below current laboratory limits, once wave-packet, source, and wall effects are treated properly.

desk verdict A careful QFT treatment of undulator LSW that shows the naive oscillation formula fails and identifies a cheap parasitic geometry, but the headline reach still leans on an idealized detector response and an internal air-pressure inconsistency. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.22055 v1 pith:J5N7KGZK submitted 2025-07-29 hep-ph hep-exphysics.acc-ph

Wen Yin This is my paper
classification hep-phhep-exphysics.acc-ph
keywords darkphotonlightshiningthroughawallundulatorX-raysourcequantumZenoeffectwave-packetdecoherencekineticequationcomplexrefractiveindexparasiticsearch
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

This paper argues that the standard one-dimensional oscillation formula used for light-shining-through-a-wall (LSW) dark-photon searches is not adequate when the light source is an undulator, and that a full quantum treatment changes the predicted sensitivity by large, mass-dependent factors. The author computes production amplitudes for photon and dark-photon states directly from the undulator electron current, then propagates them through the wall and, in the realistic case, through air using a quantum kinetic equation that incorporates the medium's complex refractive index. Three effects dominate: wave-packet averaging washes out the naive oscillation at high dark-photon mass; the undulator's microscopic structure kinematically suppresses production of the heavy eigenstate for $m_{\gamma'} \gtrsim k\gamma \sim 0.2$–$0.3$ eV (for the benchmark parameters $\gamma = 6000$ and a 3 cm undulator period); and the medium either suppresses or resonantly enhances mixing, depending on how $m_{\gamma'}$ compares with the plasma mass of the wall ($\sim 50$ eV for lead) or of air ($\sim 1$ eV). The payoff is concrete: a photon detector placed outside the shielding along an existing synchrotron beamline, using the primary undulator flux parasitically, could probe dark photons of mass roughly $0.01$–$100$ eV with sensitivity exceeding current laboratory limits by orders of magnitude.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on three objects. (1) Source amplitudes: the undulator electron current, Fourier-transformed with the finite-width delta function $\delta_L(\Delta q) = (e^{iqL}-1)/(iq)$ (exponentially regulated at the magnet boundaries), which gives the spectra of both mass eigenstates with a finite energy spread $\Delta k_{\gamma'} \sim k_{\gamma'}/(kL)$ that later drives wave-packet decoherence. (2) The kinetic equation $\dot{\rho} = -i[H,\rho] - \frac{1}{2}\{\Gamma,\rho\}$ in the mass basis, with $H$ built from the vacuum splitting $m_{\gamma'}^2/(2k_{\gamma'})$ and the medium's plasma-mass matrix, and $\Gamma = \mu$ times the mixing matrix; the medium parameters come from the transverse polarization $\Pi_T = E_\gamma^2(1-n^2) = m_{\gamma,\mathrm{p}}^2 - iE_\gamma\mu$, evaluated with tabulated complex refractive indices for lead and air. (3) The propagation mode: in each medium the surviving state $\varphi_{\gamma',\mathrm{eff}}$ is nearly pure dark-photon flavor, and its photon overlap at the detector is the effective mixing $\chi^2_{\mathrm{eff}} = \chi^2 m_{\gamma'}^4 / [(m_{\gamma'}^2 - m_{\gamma,\mathrm{p}}^2)^2 + k_{\gamma'}^2\mu^2]$, the single formula that produces the quantum-Zeno suppression at small $m_{\gamma'}$ and the resonances at $m_{\gamma'} \simeq m_{\gamma,\mathrm{p}}$.

What would settle it

Measure the detection probability of a real keV-scale photon detector (for example a silicon sensor or Geiger counter) against an incident massive eigenstate as a function of mass: if it scales differently from the assumed $\chi^2$, the projected curves in Figs. 5 and 13 move. Alternatively, operate the parasitic setup for one year behind a synchrotron shield and count photons at the resonant masses (near $\sim 1$ eV in air, near $\sim 50$ eV in lead), where the paper predicts $10^2$–$10^4$ signal photons per year at the benchmark couplings; the photons would appear or be excluded, settling the claimed reach.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim, stated on the paper's own terms, is that an undulator-based LSW search must be treated as one quantum system spanning source, wall, and medium, and that doing so overturns conclusions drawn from the naive formula $P_{\gamma\to\gamma} = 16\chi^4[\sin(\Delta k L_1/2)\sin(\Delta k L_2/2)]^2$. Working in the mass-eigenstate basis, the paper derives the production spectra of the massless and massive eigenstates from the undulator current, keeps the finite energy spread of the emitted wave packet, and propagates the states through the lead wall and the air with the kinetic equation $\dot{\rho} = -i[H,\rho] - \frac{1}{2}\{\Gamma,\rho\}$, where the complex refractive index of wall and air enters through the plasma mass $m_{\gamma,\mathrm{p}}$ and the attenuation coefficient $\mu$. Three features distinguish the result: wave-packet averaging suppresses the naive oscillation signal for heavy dark photons; production of the heavy eigenstate is kinematically impeded for $m_{\gamma'} \gtrsim k\gamma$, with the massless state regenerating the signal; and the medium produces a quantum-Zeno suppression at low mass together with resonant enhancement at $m_{\gamma'} \simeq m_{\gamma,\mathrm{p}}$ (near $\sim 1$ eV in air, near $\sim 50$ eV in lead). With these effects included, a detector placed outside the shielding along the beamline, using the primary flux of about $2 \times 10^{27}$ photons per year, yields projected sensitivities (Figs. 5 and 13) that exceed existing laboratory limits by orders of magnitude in the mass range $\sim 0.01$–$100$ eV; in the air-filled case the reach near the $\sim 1$ eV resonance even beats the vacuum configuration.

Load-bearing premise

The sensitivity curves assume an idealized detector response, namely that the detector registers the massless eigenstate with probability $1$ and the massive eigenstate with probability $\chi^2$; the paper itself flags this as the caveat deferred to future work, so a realistic detector that responds differently would shift every projected limit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A detector placed outside the shielding of an existing synchrotron undulator beamline, using only the primary undulator flux, would provide an economical parasitic LSW search whose projected sensitivity exceeds all current laboratory dark-photon limits across roughly $0.01$–$100$ eV.
  • Sensitivity is environment-dependent rather than universal: wall material, air pressure, and detector-side path length change the reach at a given mass, so these choices are part of the experimental design, not secondary details.
  • For $m_{\gamma'} \gtrsim 50$ eV the lead wall's attenuation suppresses the signal, but the wall resonance at $m_{\gamma'} \simeq m_{\gamma,\mathrm{p,pb}}$ partially restores the reach, and in air the quantum-Zeno suppression affects only masses well below $\sim 1$ eV.
  • Filling the detector side with air instead of vacuum loses little above $\sim 1$ eV and even improves the reach near the air resonance, so evacuating the detector volume is not required for a first search.
  • The same quantum treatment transfers to axion-like-particle searches in the same geometry, because the source-amplitude machinery and the medium effects apply equally to ALP–photon conversion.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An optimization the paper leaves implicit: since the sensitive mass window is set by the baselines $L_1, L_2$ and the undulator length $L$ (the scale hierarchy of Eq. (28)), shortening the baselines or lengthening the undulator should shift the decoherence and low-mass thresholds, letting a facility tune which dark-photon mass slice it probes.
  • The wall-resonance effect points to a material-scanning strategy: because the reach peaks where $m_{\gamma'}$ matches the plasma mass of the shield, a sequence of shield materials would map out the mass range in overlapping resonant windows rather than relying on one lead wall.
  • The paper's idealized detector assumption (probability $\chi^2$ for the heavy eigenstate) is flagged as conservative; a real detector that absorbs the photon-like component at its surface while the weakly-mixed component reconverts deeper would raise the detection probability, so a detector-level study is the most likely route to strengthening the projected reach at heavy masses.
  • The benchmark curves assume backgrounds near those reported for an occupied experimental hutch (about $10^4$ photons per year); because the actual radiation environment behind a facility shield is unmeasured, a background survey at a concrete beamline would decide which of the paper's two benchmarks a real parasitic search achieves.
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

6 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper revisits the standard light-shining-through-a-wall (LSW) formula for dark photons and argues that for undulator sources the naive oscillation formula is inadequate. It develops a QFT treatment of undulator production of mass and massless eigenstates, includes finite wave-packet effects, and uses a density-matrix/kinetic equation with complex refractive indices to model propagation through a lead wall and through air. The central quantitative result is a projected sensitivity in the (m_γ', χ) plane, for vacuum and air-filled detector sides, that exceeds existing laboratory limits by orders of magnitude in the ~0.01–100 eV range. The author explicitly flags caveats, especially the idealized detector response and the deferred background analysis, and promises a future detector-level study.

Significance. If the projections hold, the proposed parasitic detector outside the shielding of an operating undulator beamline would be a very economical way to probe dark photons beyond current laboratory bounds, and the paper's systematic inclusion of source kinematics, wave-packet decoherence, and material resonances is a useful methodological step beyond the one-dimensional oscillation formula. The analytic cross-checks (Eq. (44) vs Fig. 9, Eq. (50) vs Fig. 11) and the use of tabulated refractive-index data are strengths; no parameters are fitted to data. However, the load-bearing idealizations, namely Eq. (27)'s detector response, the assumed background, and the inconsistent air-pressure specification, mean the quantitative reach is not yet fully established.

major comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (31)] Equation (31) defines the photon-production amplitude as \tildeΦ(ϵ, γ, k_γ') = ⟨1, ϵ, k_γ'|0_j⟩ ≃ ⟨2, ϵ, k_γ'|0_j⟩/χ². This contradicts Eq. (25), which implies |⟨1|0_j⟩|² = |⟨2|0_j⟩|²/χ² and hence a factor 1/χ, not 1/χ². If Eq. (31) is used literally, the χ^4 prefactor in Eq. (34) produces a χ² scaling instead of the expected χ^4, so the normalization of the light-mass sensitivity curves in Figs. 5 and 13 must be rechecked.
  2. [Sec. 3, Eq. (27)] The assumed detector response P_det=1 for the massless eigenstate and P_det=χ² for the massive eigenstate controls the heavy-mass parts of Figs. 5 and 13. The paper itself lists this as caveat 4 and defers a detector-level analysis to future work; because a real detector has finite thickness and energy-dependent efficiency, the projected reach could change. Please compute the response for a concrete technology or clearly present the curves as conditional on Eq. (27).
  3. [Sec. 3.4, Eq. (38)] The scale m_γ' ~30 eV sqrt[µ/(2×10^-4 cm^-1) (k_γ'/keV)] is inconsistent with the lead attenuation coefficient µ_pb ≈ 2×10^4 cm^-1 quoted earlier in Sec. 3. With µ_pb=2×10^4 cm^-1, the argument of the square root is 10^8, moving the attenuation-loss scale many orders of magnitude above 30 eV. Please correct the units or reference value and verify that the scale labels in Figs. 5 and 13 are consistent with the numerical inputs.
  4. [Sec. 4 / Fig. 8] The caption of Fig. 8 specifies air at 1 Pa and 295 K, while the text of Sec. 4 specifies standard atmospheric pressure and 293 K. The attenuation coefficient µ_air and plasma mass m_{γ,p,air} used in Eqs. (52) and (53), and hence the quantum-Zeno suppression and the ~1 eV resonance in Fig. 13, depend directly on this choice. Please state the actual pressure used in the calculation and make the caption and text consistent.
  5. [Sec. 3, background paragraph] The sensitivity curves in Figs. 5 and 13 use benchmark signal rates of 1/yr and 10^4/yr and assume a background comparable to O(10^4)/yr from Ref. [11], but no background model is given for a detector placed outside the shielding. Since the radiation environment there is not the same as inside the SPring-8 hutch, the projected reach should either be accompanied by a concrete background estimate or explicitly labelled as a signal-sensitivity curve requiring a background at the assumed level.
  6. [Sec. 3.5] The assertion that Eqs. (34) and (46) coincide in the intermediate region is not demonstrated; no plot shows both expressions in the claimed overlap. A mismatch at the switch point would alter the shape of the sensitivity curves in Figs. 5 and 13, so please show the two formulas together over the overlap interval and state the switch value.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3, text after Eq. (28)] The phrase 'the typical photon energy is kγ ~ keV' should read kγ² ~ 1.5 keV (or 2kγ² at θ=0); the current phrasing is off by a factor γ and is inconsistent with Eq. (18).
  2. [Eq. (15)] The regulator ϵ=1/20 is chosen by hand; because the high-mass production tail and the kink in Fig. 5 can depend on the boundary treatment, an ϵ scan (or an analytic estimate of the ϵ sensitivity) would help substantiate the regulator choice.
  3. [Throughout] The text contains several typographical and encoding artifacts: 'reflective index' should be 'refractive index', 'enhancent' should be 'enhancement', and 'na¨ıve' appears as a broken ligature in several places.
  4. [Fig. 8 caption] The sentence 'They are estimated from [24]' should identify which curves correspond to lead and which to air; as printed the sentence is ambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensitivity curves follow from QFT production amplitudes, a kinetic equation, and tabulated refractive indices; the detector response Eq. (27) is an explicit assumption, not a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain does not reduce to its inputs. The undulator production amplitudes in Sec. 2 are obtained from a QFT current calculation, with the finite-width delta function kept explicitly; the wall and air transmission probabilities in Secs. 3.3-3.4 and 4.1 follow from the kinetic equation Eq. (39) with the Hamiltonian and damping matrix built from tabulated complex refractive indices via Eq. (41). No parameter is fitted to the sensitivity target, and the comparison with the existing SPring-8 limit in Figs. 5 and 13 is an external benchmark. Equation (27), which assigns detection probabilities P_det = 1 and chi^2, is an explicit modeling assumption rather than a derived prediction; the paper itself flags it as caveat 4 and defers a detector-level analysis. The self-citations to Refs. [19] and [30] are not load-bearing in a circular way: the production formulas from [19] are reproduced in Eqs. (9)-(16), and the quantum-Zeno suppression is re-derived by diagonalizing the complex Hamiltonian leading to Eq. (50). The central claim is therefore self-contained against explicit assumptions and external refractive-index data, with only minor self-citation that does not force the results.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the dark photon model, the undulator production approximation, the linear-response treatment of media, and the idealized detector response. No new particles or forces are introduced. The only parameter chosen by hand beyond the physical inputs is the regulator eps=1/20.

free parameters (2)
  • eps (exponential regulator) = 1/20
    Introduced in Eq. (15) to suppress unphysical high-momentum modes in the undulator production amplitude. Value chosen by hand; changes the high-mass production rate that sets the wall-resonance sensitivity near m_gamma' ~ 50 eV.
  • Benchmark signal rates = 1/yr and 10^4/yr
    Chosen in Sec. 3.5 based on a background estimate from Ref. [11] (~10^4/yr in 5-30 keV). These define the projected discovery threshold and directly set the sensitivity curves; they are not derived from the physics.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dark photon Lagrangian with kinetic mixing chi and mass m_gamma' (Eq. 1)
    The theoretical model under study; not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption Undulator electron trajectory given by Eq. (4) with K <= 1, neglecting O(K^2, gamma^-2)
    Standard undulator approximation; used to compute production amplitudes.
  • standard math Matter effects described by complex refractive index n = 1 - delta + i beta with Pi_T ~ m_gamma,p^2 - i E_gamma mu (Eq. 41)
    Standard linear response of media; tabulated delta and beta from Ref. [24] used as external input.
  • ad hoc to paper Detector response P_det = 1 (massless eigenstate) and P_det = chi^2 (massive eigenstate)
    Assumed in Eq. (27); acknowledged by the author as an idealization (caveat 4) deferred to future work.
  • ad hoc to paper Background rate comparable to 10^4/yr from Ref. [11]
    Used to set benchmark signal rates 1/yr and 10^4/yr; not measured in the proposed parasitic configuration.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum and Material Effects in Undulator-Based LSW Searches for Dark Photons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5N7KGZK

@misc{pith2026250722055,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum and Material Effects in Undulator-Based LSW Searches for Dark Photons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5N7KGZK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.22055}
}
read the original abstract

The dark photon is one of the simplest extensions of the Standard Model and provides a minimal laboratory for quantum-mechanical phenomena. Light-shining-through-a-wall (LSW) searches often adopt the dark photon-photon oscillation formula as if the sensitivity were independent of the light source, the wall, and the surrounding medium. In this paper, I revisit an LSW experiment whose light source is an undulator and systematically include various quantum effects: finite wave packets, kinematical suppression due to the microscopic structure of the source, and mixing suppression/enhancement in the wall and the air. We find that the resulting sensitivities deviate significantly from those obtained with the na\"{i}ve oscillation formula, especially depending on the mass of the dark photon, relevant to reflective index of the medium or walls, there can be resonance effects enhancing the sensitivity significantly. Accounting for these effects, we show that placing a photon detector outside the shielding along the beamline of a synchrotron facility enables an economical, parasitic LSW search for dark photons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.22055 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Momentum and polar–angle distributions of undulator (dark) photons. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ˙nlog θ by varying θ for various mγ ′. The dotted black line denotes mγ ′ = 0. Dot–dashed colored lines correspond to mγ ′/k ∈ [0.316, 0.794) (equal logarithmic spacing); solid lines to mγ ′/k ∈ [0.794, 1.26]; dashed lines to mγ ′/k ∈ (1.26, 3.16]. In all cases γ = 6 × 103 and L = 200/k. where Eq.(16) is used for the amplitude. Keeping only the leading terms in the K2 and 1/γ expansions, the rate factorizes as ∂Ωn˙ … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Effective photon-dark photon conversion efficiency for the massive mode [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (12 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The systematical view of the setup of consideration. I consider [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Prospects of the LSW search of dark photon from undulator. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: P eff γ→γ by varying mγ ′ for the photon produced from undulator. γ = 6 × 103 , L = 200/k are taken. 10 50 100 500 1000 5000 10-8 10-4 1 mγ '/k χ - 4 dP γ - γ dlog θ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ∂log10[θ]Pγ→γ by varying mγ ′ for the photon produced from undulator. γ = 6 × 103 , L = 200/k are taken. log10 θ is varied [-4.64282, -2.38282] with an interval of 1/50 from blue to red. Thus the production stage is straightforward; the remaining task is to analyze how…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: δ and β in the complex reflective indices of lead and air from top to bottom. I assume 11.34g/cm3 for the density of pb, and the air with the pressure of 1Pa and temperature of 295kelvin. They are estimated from [24]. The probabilities of the final states can be unders…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Numerical solution of the kinetic equation for the transmittance: [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as Fig. 6, but the heavy mass region is computed with the particle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Solution of the kinetic equation for the photon-flavor transmittance [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Same as Figs. 6 (left panel) and 10 (right panel) but the detector side is [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Same setup as Fig. 5 but the sensitivity limit is for the detector side filled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Dominant modes of kγ ′/k by varying θ. The blue dashed line corresponds to mγ ′ = 0 (the photon case), and the red solid line to mγ ′ = 0.9√ βk 1−β2 , with Lorentz factor γ = 5000. A Behavior at θ ≈ 0 and the resonance in the mas￾sive mode production from undulator Wh…
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: ˙nθ by varying mγ ′. k = 1, θ = 0.01, L = 100, γ = 10 For larger mγ ′, one cannot have delta function argument close to zero (c.f. Fig.14) and thus it gets highly suppressed. Therefore there is a resonance like effect at the value Eq.(55) for ˙nθ. References [1] B. Ho…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Deep Reinforcement Learning Based Routing for Heterogeneous Multi-Hop Wireless Networks

    eess.SP 2025-08 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

    A DQN routing scheme with channel-based neighbor selection is claimed to match optimal end-to-end rates, but the full text is about dark photon searches, not wireless routing.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

29 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [11]

    Inada, T

    T. Inada, T. Namba, S. Asai, T. Kobayashi, Y. Tanaka, K. Tamasaku et al., Results of a Search for Paraphotons with Intense X-ray Beams at SPring-8, Phys. Lett. B722(2013) 301–304, [1301.6557]

    arXiv 2013

  2. [1]

    Holdom,Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,Phys

    B. Holdom,Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,Phys. Lett. B166(1986) 196–198

    1986

  3. [2]

    S. A. Abel, J. Jaeckel, V. V. Khoze and A. Ringwald,Illuminating the Hidden Sector of String Theory by Shining Light through a Magnetic Field,Phys. Lett. B666(2008) 66–70, [hep-ph/0608248]

    arXiv 2008

  4. [3]

    S. L. Adler, J. Gamboa, F. Mendez and J. Lopez-Sarrion,Axions and ’Light Shining Through a Wall’: A Detailed Theoretical Analysis,Annals Phys.323 (2008) 2851–2872, [0801.4739]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2008

  5. [4]

    Arias, J

    P. Arias, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo and A. Ringwald,Optimizing Light-Shining-through-a-Wall Experiments for Axion and other WISP Searches,Phys. Rev. D82(2010) 115018, [1009.4875]. 30

    arXiv 2010

  6. [5]

    Redondo and A

    J. Redondo and A. Ringwald,Light shining through walls,Contemp. Phys.52 (2011) 211–236, [1011.3741]

    arXiv 2011

  7. [6]

    B¨ ahre et al.,Any light particle search II —Technical Design Report,JINST 8(2013) T09001, [1302.5647]

    R. B¨ ahre et al.,Any light particle search II —Technical Design Report,JINST 8(2013) T09001, [1302.5647]

    arXiv 2013

  8. [7]

    M. D. Ortiz et al.,Design of the ALPS II optical system,Phys. Dark Univ.35 (2022) 100968, [2009.14294]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 29 references
  1. [8]

    Seong, C

    H. Seong, C. Sun and S. Yun,Axion magnetic resonance: A novel enhancement in axion-photon conversion,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 015018, [2308.10925]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [9]

    S. Hoof, J. Jaeckel and G. Lucente,Ultimate light-shining-through-a-wall experiments to establish QCD axions as the dominant form of dark matter, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 015003, [2407.04772]

    2025 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Ehret et al.,New ALPS Results on Hidden-Sector Lightweights,Phys

    K. Ehret et al.,New ALPS Results on Hidden-Sector Lightweights,Phys. Lett. B689(2010) 149–155, [1004.1313]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    M. Betz, F. Caspers, M. Gasior, M. Thumm and S. W. Rieger,First results of the CERN Resonant Weakly Interacting sub-eV Particle Search (CROWS), Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 075014, [1310.8098]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J. W. D. Halliday et al.,Bounds on Heavy Axions with an X-Ray Free Electron Laser,Phys. Rev. Lett.134(2025) 055001, [2404.17333]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Battesti, M

    R. Battesti, M. Fouche, C. Detlefs, T. Roth, P. Berceau, F. Duc et al.,A Photon Regeneration Experiment for Axionlike Particle Search using X-rays, Phys. Rev. Lett.105(2010) 250405, [1008.2672]

    2010 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Della Valle, A

    F. Della Valle, A. Ejlli, U. Gastaldi, G. Messineo, E. Milotti, R. Pengo et al., The PVLAS experiment: measuring vacuum magnetic birefringence and dichroism with a birefringent Fabry–Perot cavity,Eur. Phys. J. C76(2016) 24, [1510.08052]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Inada et al.,Search for Two-Photon Interaction with Axionlike Particles Using High-Repetition Pulsed Magnets and Synchrotron X Rays,Phys

    T. Inada et al.,Search for Two-Photon Interaction with Axionlike Particles Using High-Repetition Pulsed Magnets and Synchrotron X Rays,Phys. Rev. Lett.118(2017) 071803, [1609.05425]. 31 [17]OSQARcollaboration, R. Ballou et al.,New exclusion limits on scalar and pseudoscalar ax...

    2017 arXiv

  9. [18]

    Sikivie, D

    P. Sikivie, D. B. Tanner and K. van Bibber,Resonantly enhanced axion-photon regeneration,Phys. Rev. Lett.98(2007) 172002, [hep-ph/0701198]

    2007 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Yin and J

    W. Yin and J. Yoshida,Undulators are ALP factories,Phys. Rev. D111 (2025) 036020, [2408.17451]

    2025 arXiv

  11. [20]

    E. W. Lemmon, M. L. Huber, M. O. McLinden et al.,Nist standard reference database 23,Reference fluid thermodynamic and transport properties (REFPROP), version9(2010)

    2010

  12. [21]

    Redondo,Helioscope Bounds on Hidden Sector Photons,JCAP07(2008) 008, [0801.1527]

    J. Redondo,Helioscope Bounds on Hidden Sector Photons,JCAP07(2008) 008, [0801.1527]

    2008 arXiv

  13. [22]

    Frerick, F

    J. Frerick, F. Kahlhoefer and K. Schmidt-Hoberg,A’ view of the sunrise: boosting helioscopes with angular information,JCAP03(2023) 001, [2211.00022]

    2023 arXiv

  14. [23]

    Sigl and G

    G. Sigl and G. Raffelt,General kinetic description of relativistic mixed neutrinos,Nucl. Phys. B406(1993) 423–451

    1993

  15. [24]

    B. L. Henke, E. M. Gullikson and J. C. Davis,X-ray interactions: photoabsorption, scattering, transmission, and reflection at e= 50-30,000 ev, z= 1-92,Atomic data and nuclear data tables54(1993) 181–342

    1993

  16. [25]

    C. T. Chantler,Theoretical form factor, attenuation, and scattering tabulation for z= 1–92 from e= 1–10 ev to e= 0.4–1.0 mev,Journal of Physical and Chemical Reference Data24(1995) 71–643

    1995

  17. [26]

    C. T. Chantler,Detailed tabulation of atomic form factors, photoelectric absorption and scattering cross section, and mass attenuation coefficients in the vicinity of absorption edges in the soft x-ray (z= 30–36, z= 60–89, e= 0.1 kev–10 kev), addressing convergence issues of e...

    2000

  18. [27]

    Caputo, A

    A. Caputo, A. J. Millar, C. A. J. O’Hare and E. Vitagliano,Dark photon limits: A handbook,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 095029, [2105.04565]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [28]

    H. An, M. Pospelov and J. Pradler,Dark Matter Detectors as Dark Photon Helioscopes,Phys. Rev. Lett.111(2013) 041302, [1304.3461]. 32

    2013 arXiv

  20. [29]

    H. An, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler and A. Ritz,Direct Detection Constraints on Dark Photon Dark Matter,Phys. Lett. B747(2015) 331–338, [1412.8378]

    2015 arXiv

  21. [30]

    quantum Zeno effect

    K. Sakurai and W. Yin,Suppression of Higgs mixing by “quantum Zeno effect”,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 498, [2204.01739]. 33

    2023 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.