Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Above the Planck scale, dark matter must be composite; this paper shows that finite-sized clumps would produce a λ² signal in a quantum sensor array instead of an exponential one, opening a new window on short-range fifth forces.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 17:14 UTC pith:HBPWU4QI

load-bearing objection New λ² scaling for extended clumps is real and clean; but the 20 mHz noise floor is not demonstrated, so the reach projections are conditional. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.10124 v2 pith:HBPWU4QI submitted 2025-12-10 hep-ph hep-ex

Towards the Direct Detection of Composite Ultraheavy Dark Matter in Quantum Sensor Arrays

Dorian W. P. Amaral , Erqian Cai , Andrew J. Long , Juehang Qin , Christopher D. Tunnell This is my paper
classification hep-ph hep-ex PACS 95.35.+d
keywords ultraheavy dark mattercomposite dark matterquantum sensor arrayYukawa fifth forcedirect detectionaccelerometersPlanck massfinite-size dark matter
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper argues that ultraheavy dark matter with masses at or above the Planck scale cannot be elementary—it must exist as composite clumps with finite spatial extent—and that this size changes how a future quantum sensor array would detect it. The authors compute the impulse such a clump would deliver to a 3D array of 100-gram accelerometers when it interacts through gravity plus a Yukawa fifth force, and they project the array's sensitivity across clump mass, radius, force strength, and screening length. Their central finding is qualitative: when the Yukawa screening length is much shorter than the clump radius, the signal from an extended clump scales as λ² instead of falling exponentially as for a point particle, so extended dark matter becomes easier to detect in the short-range-force regime. With a benchmark 20×20×20 array at 15 mK with Q=10^10 and 15 dB quantum squeezing, the array would reach interaction strengths α≳few×10^4 for Planck-mass clumps, with the best sensitivity when the clump size matches the typical impact parameter of about a centimeter.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that composite ultraheavy dark matter—expected if dark matter reaches Planck-scale masses—produces a qualitatively different signal in a quantum sensor array than a point-like particle does. Working in the clump's rest frame and treating the dark matter density profile as a tophat, Gaussian, or exponential, the authors compute the impulse delivered to each sensor from gravity plus a Yukawa force with strength α and screening length λ. They find that when λ≪R, the clump's finite extent changes the scaling: the signal goes as λ² rather than being exponentially suppressed, because the Yukawa potential in that regime satisfies U≈−4παGλ²ρ(r). Consequently, extended cl

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the short-range limit of the Yukawa potential. When the screening length λ is much smaller than the clump radius R, the potential satisfies (∇²−1/λ²)U=4παGρ, so to leading order U≃−4παGλ²ρ(r); the force becomes proportional to ∇ρ, producing a signal that scales as λ² instead of the exponential e^{−b/λ} of a point mass. Around this identity, the paper builds a Monte Carlo simulation of a 20×20×20 array of 100 g sensors at 10 cm spacing, T=15 mK, Q=10^10, and 15 dB quantum squeezing, each measuring the impulse |∫F·n̂ dt|, with thermal and quantum noise added in quadrature and a detection threshold of SNR≥10 that accounts for the look-elsewhere effect.

Load-bearing premise

The entire sensitivity projection rests on the assumption that a 20×20×20 array of 100 g sensors can be built and operated at 15 mK with mechanical quality factor Q=10^10 and 15 dB of quantum-noise squeezing, with thermal and quantum noise as the only significant noise sources.

What would settle it

Measure the impulse from a known short-range force on a single sensor at λ≪R: if the signal falls exponentially with λ rather than as λ², the central scaling claim fails. Likewise, a direct measurement of the noise floor showing levels worse than the assumed ξ=15 dB and Q=10^10 at 15 mK would remove the projected reach in α, λ, M, and R.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Extended ultraheavy dark matter is detectable where point-like models are not: for λ≪R the required coupling grows only as α∝λ⁻², not exponentially.
  • The array's sensitivity is best when the clump radius matches the typical impact parameter, R≈⟨b⟩≈d/(2√N)≈1 cm, so detector geometry can be optimized for a model prior.
  • Gravity alone is insufficient: with α=0 the projected SNR never exceeds unity, so any detection would require a non-gravitational interaction.
  • The mass reach is flux-limited: for the benchmark array, sensitivity in M cuts off near a few times the Planck mass, with the cutoff pushed higher for larger clumps because the geometric cross section grows.
  • Signals from clumps much larger than the array (R≳L≈1.9 m) are diluted and fall steeply, so this platform is tailored to centimeter-scale ultraheavy dark matter.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper: because the λ² scaling follows the density gradient ∇ρ, a future array that measures signal versus λ could in principle distinguish tophat, Gaussian, and exponential profiles, which have different proportionality constants.
  • Beyond the paper: the Helmholtz-limit argument is geometry-independent, so the power-law-versus-exponential distinction should carry over to other macroscopic force sensors, such as torsion balances, levitated particles, or atom gradiometers, that couple to a Yukawa force.
  • Beyond the paper: the flux cutoff implies that arrays with larger aperture L could probe clump masses well above the Planck scale; the paper fixes L≈1.9 m, but the scaling of encounter rate with (R+L/2)² suggests a directly testable extension through detector design.
  • Beyond the paper: if no events are seen, the projected α∝λ⁻² bound can be recast as a constraint on the dark-sector charge-to-mass ratio and the clump density profile, linking these detector projections to model-building for dark blobs and quark nuggets.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies direct detection of composite ultraheavy dark matter (mass M∼M_Pl, characteristic radius R) with a hypothetical 3D quantum sensor array, assuming gravitational plus Yukawa ('fifth force') interactions with strength α and screening length λ. It considers three finite density profiles (tophat, Gaussian, exponential) and the point-like limit, computes single-sensor impulses from analytic force formulas (Appendix A), combines thermal and quantum noise into an SNR (Eqs. 3.5–3.9), and runs Monte Carlo track simulations (Appendix B) to produce sensitivity projections in the (λ,R), (M,R), (α,λ), and (α,M) planes. The central qualitative claim is that when λ≪R, finite-size clumps yield a signal scaling as λ², instead of the exponential suppression of a point-like particle, leading to an optimal sensitivity at clump radius R≈⟨b⟩≈d/(2√N)≈1 cm. For the 'future milestone' benchmark array (20³ sensors, 100 g each, d=10 cm, T=15 mK, Q=10^10, ξ=15 dB), the paper projects sensitivity to α≳few×10^4 for M≈M_Pl and λ≳1 m.

Significance. The paper makes a useful and credible conceptual point: finite spatial extent changes the small-λ behavior of the signal qualitatively, and the Helmholtz-equation argument (Eq. 3.3) is a clean, non-fitted derivation rather than a numerical artifact. The analytic force expressions in Appendix A are explicit and recover the correct limits (R→0 gives the point-like result; λ→∞ recovers gravity), and the Monte Carlo procedure in Appendix B is described step-by-step. If the sensitivity projections survive a more complete treatment of the noise floor, the work provides concrete guidance for future mechanical sensor arrays and a framework for interpreting signals from composite UHDM models. The main weakness is that the quantitative reach depends on an assumed noise floor that omits seismic/vibrational noise at the sensor resonance frequency, as detailed below.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2, Eq. (3.7), Table 1] The noise floor in Eq. (3.7) contains only thermal and quantum noise, and the text explicitly states: 'We do not include vibrational noise in this study, as sufficient vibration isolation... has been demonstrated at a resonance frequency of 1 Hz at ground level.' However, the benchmark sensor resonance is ω0=2π(20 mHz) (Table 1), a factor of 50 below the demonstrated 1 Hz isolation. At 20 mHz, ground acceleration noise is typically 10^-6–10^-5 m/s²/√Hz, while keeping the seismic impulse noise below N≈6×10^-19 N·s (m_s=100 g, τ=0.24 s) requires residual acceleration noise ≲10^-17 m/s²/√Hz. Even 10^6 vibration isolation leaves a residual many orders of magnitude above this. Since N enters every SNR (Eq. 3.9) and every sensitivity contour in Figs. 5–8, an unmodeled seismic floor can degrade the quoted reach α≳few×10^4 by orders of magnitude. Please add a seismic/vibrational noise term at th
  2. [§3.1, §4.2, Fig. 5] The finite size of a sensor is modeled by a force cap: for |r|<R_s, F(r) is evaluated at |r|=R_s (Section 3.1). This is not a minor detail because R_s≈1.3 cm is comparable to ⟨b⟩≈1 cm and to the clump radius R at which the paper finds optimal sensitivity (R≈⟨b⟩; Fig. 5 and Section 5). The actual force on a macroscopic sensor is a volume integral over its mass distribution, which does not in general equal the point-force evaluated at R_s. Since the claimed optimum lies exactly in the regime where the cap is active, please quantify the systematic uncertainty by varying R_s or by performing a volume-integrated calculation for a homogeneous sensor sphere. Without this, the quantitative reach in the central finding is not fully robust.
  3. [§3.3, Table 1, Eq. (3.10)] The projected reach relies on the 'future milestone' benchmark: 100 g sensors, T=15 mK, Q=10^10 at 20 mHz, ξ=15 dB, in a 20^3 array. These parameters are adopted from ref. [23] and are not demonstrated simultaneously; the manuscript itself labels them a future milestone. Because all sensitivity contours scale with the noise floor N in Eq. (3.7), a shortfall in any of Q, ξ, T, or in unmodeled technical noise translates directly into a loss of reach. I ask the authors to state more prominently that this is a benchmark projection and to provide a simple scaling relation (e.g., α_reach ∝ N ∝ (T γ/ξ²)^{1/4}) or a parameter-degradation table so the reader can judge robustness.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, Fig. 3] The sentence 'for a clump radius of R=10 cm< b, such that the sensor passes through the clump' is contradictory with Fig. 3, where b=1 cm and R=10 cm, i.e., b<R. Please correct to 'b=1 cm < R'. It would also help to state explicitly that the λ² scaling applies to sensors whose trajectories cross the clump (b<R); for trajectories with b>R, the Yukawa field outside the clump remains exponentially suppressed.
  2. [Table 1, Eqs. (3.5)–(3.7)] The damping rate is listed as γ≈1.3×10^-11 Hz. Since ω0=2π(20 mHz) is an angular frequency, γ=ω0/Q has units of s^-1 (or rad/s), not Hz. The equations should use a consistent convention.
  3. [§3.2] Typo: 'This includes including seismic activity within and outside of the cryogenic system' should read 'This includes seismic activity...'.
  4. [Appendix A] The normalizations ρ0,T, ρ0,G, and ρ0,E in Eqs. (A.1a)–(A.1c) are not explicitly defined in the text. Please define them (e.g., via the profile normalizations in Eq. (2.1)) to make the analytic expressions self-contained.
  5. [§4.5] The scaling α∝M^{-3/5} is stated without derivation. A one-sentence explanation of how this follows from the competition between F∝αM and N_encounter∝M^{-1} would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central finite-size λ² scaling is derived analytically from the Yukawa Helmholtz equation, and the only self-citation is the non-load-bearing detector benchmark taken from ref. [23].

full rationale

The paper's main new result — that for λ≪R the finite-size clump signal scales as λ² rather than exponentially — is obtained in eq. (3.3) by expanding the Yukawa potential's Helmholtz equation with the assumed density profile; it is a forward analytic calculation from stated assumptions, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The Monte Carlo sensitivity projections use a 'future milestone' detector benchmark (T=15 mK, Q=10^10, ξ=15 dB, 20^3 100 g sensors) and noise formulas taken from ref. [23], which shares authors with this paper. This is an input assumption for the projections, not the quantity being derived, so the self-citation is not load-bearing for the new finite-size phenomenology. The long-wavelength α≈few×10^4 result is cross-checked against ref. [23] (footnote 1) via an analytic coupling conversion; this is a consistency check, not a derivation step. The statement that SNR<1 for α=0 is asserted with a citation to ref. [23] and is not actually visible in figs. 7–8, but this is a support/verification gap rather than a circular reduction. Likewise, omitting vibrational noise while citing 1-Hz isolation [55] for a 20-mHz resonance is a physical risk, not circularity. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained; score reflects only the minor self-citation in the benchmark choice.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central physics result (λ² scaling, R-dependent sensitivity) is derived from the assumed Yukawa potential and density profiles, with no fitted parameters. The load-bearing hand-chosen inputs are the future-detector noise benchmark, the ad hoc sensor force cap, and the detection-threshold convention. The Yukawa force itself is a postulated interaction with no independent laboratory evidence in the paper.

free parameters (3)
  • Future milestone detector benchmark (m_s, d, N, T, Q, ξ) = 100 g, 10 cm, 20, 15 mK, 10^10, 15 dB
    Table 1, from ref [23]; chosen by hand; sets the noise floor and geometry that determine the projected sensitivity.
  • Sensor force-cap radius R_s = ≈1.3 cm
    Section 3.1; ad hoc regularization for close encounters; not derived.
  • Detection threshold (SNR≥10; N_encounter·P10≥1) = SNR=10, N_encounter·P10≥1
    Section 3.3; chosen using look-elsewhere estimate from ref [62]; controls contour placement.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption The dark matter clump is spherically symmetric with a static density profile ρ(r) and is unperturbed during the array passage.
    Section 2.1; used to derive the force in eq. (2.3). Any substructure or dynamical evolution would change the impulse.
  • domain assumption The clump interacts with ordinary matter via Newtonian gravity plus a Yukawa fifth force coupling to mass, with potential in eq. (2.2).
    Section 2.2; this is the model being tested. Without the Yukawa term (α=0) the array is insensitive (Section 5).
  • domain assumption Dark matter is non-relativistic (v_DM << c) and follows a Maxwell-Boltzmann speed distribution with v0 = 238 km s^-1; local DM density is 0.3 GeV cm^-3.
    Section 3.3; used for encounter rate and trajectory sampling.
  • domain assumption Sensor noise is dominated by uncorrelated thermal and quantum noise, given by eqs. (3.5)-(3.7); seismic and other technical noise are neglected.
    Section 3.2; load-bearing for the noise floor N and hence for the projected sensitivity. The paper cites a levitated-particle measurement for vibration isolation support.
  • ad hoc to paper Sensors can be treated as point-like with a force cap at sensor radius R_s (force evaluated at |r|=R_s for closer approaches).
    Section 3.1; this regularization is introduced ad hoc for close encounters and its effect on the projected reach is not quantified.
  • domain assumption The total array SNR is the quadrature sum of individual sensor SNRs (eq. 3.9), implying uncorrelated noise between sensors.
    Section 3.2; standard treatment, but ignores possible correlations between sensors in the same array.
invented entities (1)
  • Yukawa fifth force (strength α, range λ) no independent evidence
    purpose: Provides a non-gravitational coupling of UHDM to ordinary matter, which is required for detectability (Section 2.2).
    The paper does not derive this force from a UV completion; it is a phenomenological parametrization borrowed from fifth-force literature. Without this interaction, the array would be insensitive (α=0 gives SNR≤1).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21218 in / 14118 out tokens · 135485 ms · 2026-08-03T17:14:07.658464+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum sensor arrays have recently been proposed as a promising platform for the direct detection of ultraheavy dark matter, which is typically assumed to behave as a point-like particle. However, particles with masses at or above the Planck scale cannot be elementary; instead, they must exist as composite objects with finite spatial extent. Such spatially extended dark matter models lead to distinctive phenomenology in these detectors, particularly when the dark matter also interacts through long-range forces with their own characteristic length scales. In this work, we study the sensitivity of quantum sensor arrays to composite, ultraheavy dark matter interacting via both gravity and a novel Yukawa force. We consider three phenomenologically motivated density profiles -- a tophat, a Gaussian, and an exponential -- and contrast their signals with the point-like limit. Using a Monte Carlo analysis based on the predicted impulse signals and estimates of thermal and quantum noise, we obtain sensitivity projections for a future realization of a quantum sensor array. We find a non-trivial interplay between the dark-matter scale radius, the inter-sensor spacing, and the Yukawa screening length. Future accelerometer arrays would provide valuable information about the mass and size of composite ultraheavy dark matter, and our work will help to characterize the signatures of different theoretical models of ultraheavy dark matter.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. A Levitated-Magnet Vector Force Sensor for Spin-Dependent Exotic Interactions

    hep-ph 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    A levitated-magnet vector force sensor is introduced to resolve directional signatures of spin-dependent exotic interactions and probe electron-electron couplings at millimeter ranges using an existing experimental platform.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · 46 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Carney et al.,Snowmass2021 cosmic frontier white paper: Ultraheavy particle dark matter,SciPost Phys

    D. Carney et al.,Snowmass2021 cosmic frontier white paper: Ultraheavy particle dark matter,SciPost Phys. Core6(2023) 075 [2203.06508]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  2. [2]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel,Primordial black holes as dark matter candidates,SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes48(2022) 1 [2110.02821]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    Witten,Cosmic Separation of Phases,Phys

    E. Witten,Cosmic Separation of Phases,Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 272

    1984

  4. [4]

    Farhi and R.L

    E. Farhi and R.L. Jaffe,Strange Matter,Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 2379

    1984

  5. [5]

    Bai and A.J

    Y. Bai and A.J. Long,Six Flavor Quark Matter,JHEP06(2018) 072 [1804.10249]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  6. [6]

    Bai, A.J

    Y. Bai, A.J. Long and S. Lu,Dark Quark Nuggets,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 055047 [1810.04360]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  7. [7]

    Zhitnitsky,Axion quark nuggets

    A. Zhitnitsky,Axion quark nuggets. Dark matter and matter–antimatter asymmetry: Theory, observations and future experiments,Mod. Phys. Lett. A36(2021) 2130017 [2105.08719]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    J.-P. Hong, S. Jung and K.-P. Xie,Fermi-ball dark matter from a first-order phase transition, Phys. Rev. D102(2020) 075028 [2008.04430]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  9. [9]

    Kusenko and P.J

    A. Kusenko and P.J. Steinhardt,Q ball candidates for selfinteracting dark matter,Phys. Rev. Lett.87(2001) 141301 [astro-ph/0106008]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  10. [10]

    Grabowska, T

    D.M. Grabowska, T. Melia and S. Rajendran,Detecting Dark Blobs,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 115020 [1807.03788]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  11. [11]

    Jacobs, G.D

    D.M. Jacobs, G.D. Starkman and B.W. Lynn,Macro Dark Matter,Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.450(2015) 3418 [1410.2236]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Trivedi and A

    O. Trivedi and A. Loeb,Could planck star remnants be dark matter?,Phys. Dark Univ.49 (2025) 102003 [2506.03334]

    arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    Wise and Y

    M.B. Wise and Y. Zhang,Yukawa Bound States of a Large Number of Fermions,JHEP02 (2015) 023 [1411.1772]. – 26 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    Wise and Y

    M.B. Wise and Y. Zhang,Stable Bound States of Asymmetric Dark Matter,Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) 055030 [1407.4121]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  15. [15]

    Gresham, H.K

    M.I. Gresham, H.K. Lou and K.M. Zurek,Astrophysical Signatures of Asymmetric Dark Matter Bound States,Phys. Rev. D98(2018) 096001 [1805.04512]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  16. [16]

    Kolb and A.J

    E.W. Kolb and A.J. Long,Cosmological gravitational particle production and its implications for cosmological relics,Rev. Mod. Phys.96(2024) 045005 [2312.09042]. [17]XENONcollaboration,Searching for Heavy Dark Matter near the Planck Mass with XENON1T,Phys. Rev. Lett.130(2023) 261002 [2304.10931]. [18]LZcollaboration,New constraints on ultraheavy dark matte...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  17. [19]

    Digman, C.V

    M.C. Digman, C.V. Cappiello, J.F. Beacom, C.M. Hirata and A.H.G. Peter,Not as big as a barn: Upper bounds on dark matter-nucleus cross sections,Phys. Rev. D100(2019) 063013 [1907.10618]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [20]

    Carney et al.,Mechanical Quantum Sensing in the Search for Dark Matter,Quantum Sci

    D. Carney et al.,Mechanical Quantum Sensing in the Search for Dark Matter,Quantum Sci. Technol.6(2021) 024002 [2008.06074]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [21]

    Cleaver, C

    D. Cleaver, C. McCabe and C.A.J. O’Hare,Listening for ultraheavy dark matter with underwater acoustic detectors,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 063060 [2502.17593]

    arXiv 2025

  20. [22]

    Badurina, Y

    L. Badurina, Y. Du, V.S.H. Lee, Y. Wang and K.M. Zurek,Detecting gravitational signatures of dark matter with atom gradiometers,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 063014 [2505.00781]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  21. [23]

    Qin et al.,Mechanical sensors for ultraheavy dark matter searches via long-range forces, Phys

    J. Qin et al.,Mechanical sensors for ultraheavy dark matter searches via long-range forces, Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 072003 [2503.11645]

    arXiv 2025

  22. [24]

    Bai, A.J

    Y. Bai, A.J. Long and S. Lu,Tests of Dark MACHOs: Lensing, Accretion, and Glow,JCAP 09(2020) 044 [2003.13182]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  23. [25]

    Zhitnitsky,’Nonbaryonic’ dark matter as baryonic color superconductor,JCAP10 (2003) 010 [hep-ph/0202161]

    A.R. Zhitnitsky,’Nonbaryonic’ dark matter as baryonic color superconductor,JCAP10 (2003) 010 [hep-ph/0202161]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  24. [26]

    Kolb and I.I

    E.W. Kolb and I.I. Tkachev,Axion miniclusters and Bose stars,Phys. Rev. Lett.71(1993) 3051 [hep-ph/9303313]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  25. [27]

    Blanco, B

    C. Blanco, B. Elshimy, R.F. Lang and R. Orlando,Models of ultraheavy dark matter visible to macroscopic mechanical sensing arrays,Phys. Rev. D105(2022) 115031 [2112.14784]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  26. [28]

    Xu and J.M

    W.-L. Xu and J.M. Yang,Scattering of non-relativistic finite-size particles and puffy dark matter direct detection,2510.10641

    arXiv

  27. [29]

    Fischbach and C

    E. Fischbach and C. Talmadge,Six years of the fifth force,Nature356(1992) 207

    1992

  28. [30]

    Adelberger, B.R

    E.G. Adelberger, B.R. Heckel and A.E. Nelson,Tests of the gravitational inverse square law, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.53(2003) 77 [hep-ph/0307284]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  29. [31]

    Manley, M.D

    J. Manley, M.D. Chowdhury, D. Grin, S. Singh and D.J. Wilson,Searching for vector dark matter with an optomechanical accelerometer,Phys. Rev. Lett.126(2021) 061301 [2007.04899]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  30. [32]

    Monteiro, G

    F. Monteiro, G. Afek, D. Carney, G. Krnjaic, J. Wang and D.C. Moore,Search for composite – 27 – dark matter with optically levitated sensors,Phys. Rev. Lett.125(2020) 181102 [2007.12067]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  31. [33]

    G. Afek, D. Carney and D.C. Moore,Coherent Scattering of Low Mass Dark Matter from Optically Trapped Sensors,Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) 101301 [2111.03597]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  32. [34]

    Antypas et al.,New Horizons: Scalar and Vector Ultralight Dark Matter,2203.14915

    D. Antypas et al.,New Horizons: Scalar and Vector Ultralight Dark Matter,2203.14915

    arXiv

  33. [35]

    Brady et al.,Entanglement-enhanced optomechanical sensor array with application to dark matter searches,Commun

    A.J. Brady et al.,Entanglement-enhanced optomechanical sensor array with application to dark matter searches,Commun. Phys.6(2023) 237 [2210.07291]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  34. [36]

    Buchmueller et al.,Snowmass 2021: Quantum Sensors for HEP Science – Interferometers, Mechanics, Traps, and Clocks, inSnowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [2203.07250]

    O. Buchmueller et al.,Snowmass 2021: Quantum Sensors for HEP Science – Interferometers, Mechanics, Traps, and Clocks, inSnowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [2203.07250]. [37]Windchimecollaboration,Snowmass 2021 White Paper: The Windchime Project, in Snowmass 2021, 3, 2022 [2203.07242]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [38]

    Higgins, S

    G. Higgins, S. Kalia and Z. Liu,Maglev for dark matter: Dark-photon and axion dark matter sensing with levitated superconductors,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 055024 [2310.18398]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  36. [39]

    Chou et al.,Quantum Sensors for High Energy Physics, 11, 2023 [2311.01930]

    A. Chou et al.,Quantum Sensors for High Energy Physics, 11, 2023 [2311.01930]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  37. [40]

    Beckey, D

    J. Beckey, D. Carney and G. Marocco,Quantum measurements in fundamental physics: a user’s manual,2311.07270

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  38. [41]

    Kalia, D

    S. Kalia, D. Budker, D.F.J. Kimball, W. Ji, Z. Liu, A.O. Sushkov et al.,Ultralight dark matter detection with levitated ferromagnets,Phys. Rev. D110(2024) 115029 [2408.15330]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  39. [42]

    Amaral, M

    D.W.P. Amaral, M. Jain, M.A. Amin and C. Tunnell,Vector wave dark matter and terrestrial quantum sensors,JCAP06(2024) 050 [2403.02381]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  40. [43]

    Amaral, D.G

    D.W.P. Amaral, D.G. Uitenbroek, T.H. Oosterkamp and C.D. Tunnell,First Search for Ultralight Dark Matter Using a Magnetically Levitated Particle,2409.03814. [44]MORRIScollaboration,The MORRIS Experiment: Magnetic Levitation as a New Probe of Non-Newtonian Gravity,2506.17385

    arXiv

  41. [45]

    Aspelmeyer, T.J

    M. Aspelmeyer, T.J. Kippenberg and F. Marquardt,Cavity Optomechanics,Rev. Mod. Phys. 86(2014) 1391 [1303.0733]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  42. [46]

    Krause, M

    A.G. Krause, M. Winger, T.D. Blasius, Q. Lin and O. Painter,A high-resolution microchip optomechanical accelerometer,Nature Photon.6(2012) 768

    2012

  43. [47]

    Errando-Herranz, A.Y

    C. Errando-Herranz, A.Y. Takabayashi, P. Edinger, H. Sattari, K.B. Gylfason and N. Quack, MEMS for Photonic Integrated Circuits,2212.05169

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  44. [48]

    Fuchs, D.G

    T.M. Fuchs, D.G. Uitenbroek, J. Plugge, N. van Halteren, J.-P. van Soest, A. Vinante et al., Measuring gravity with milligram levitated masses,Sci. Adv.10(2024) eadk2949 [2303.03545]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  45. [49]

    Dania, D.S

    L. Dania, D.S. Bykov, F. Goschin, M. Teller, A. Kassid and T.E. Northup,Ultrahigh Quality Factor of a Levitated Nanomechanical Oscillator,Phys. Rev. Lett.132(2024) 133602 [2304.02408]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [50]

    Caves,Quantum-mechanical radiation-pressure fluctuations in an interferometer,Phys

    C.M. Caves,Quantum-mechanical radiation-pressure fluctuations in an interferometer,Phys. Rev. Lett.45(1980) 75. – 28 –

    1980

  47. [51]

    Caves,Quantum Mechanical Noise in an Interferometer,Phys

    C.M. Caves,Quantum Mechanical Noise in an Interferometer,Phys. Rev. D23(1981) 1693

    1981

  48. [52]

    Hadjar, P.F

    Y. Hadjar, P.F. Cohadon, C.G. Aminoff, M. Pinard and A. Heidmann,High sensitivity optical measurement of mechanical Brownian motion,EPL46(1999) 545 [quant-ph/9901056]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  49. [53]

    Ghosh, D

    S. Ghosh, D. Carney, P. Shawhan and J.M. Taylor,Backaction-evading impulse measurement with mechanical quantum sensors,Phys. Rev. A102(2020) 023525 [1910.11892]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  50. [54]

    Lee, J.L

    T.-C. Lee, J.L. Beckey, G. Marocco and D. Carney,Impulse measurements enhanced with squeezed readout light,Phys. Rev. Res.7(2025) 033041 [2502.05168]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [55]

    van Heck, T.M

    B. van Heck, T.M. Fuchs, J. Plugge, W.A. Bosch and T.H. Oosterkamp,Magnetic Cooling and Vibration Isolation of a Sub-kHz Mechanical Resonator,J. Low Temp. Phys.210(2023) 588 [2208.11750]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  52. [56]

    Trozzo and F

    L. Trozzo and F. Badaracco,Seismic and Newtonian Noise in the GW Detectors,Galaxies 10(2022) 20

    2022

  53. [57]

    Latorre, G

    M.G. Latorre, G. Higgins, A. Paradkar, T. Bauch and W. Wieczorek,Superconducting Microsphere Magnetically Levitated in an Anharmonic Potential with Integrated Magnetic Readout,Phys. Rev. Applied19(2023) 054047 [2210.13451]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  54. [58]

    Vinante, P

    A. Vinante, P. Falferi, G. Gasbarri, A. Setter, C. Timberlake and H. Ulbricht,Ultralow mechanical damping with Meissner-levitated ferromagnetic microparticles,Phys. Rev. Applied 13(2020) 064027 [1912.12252]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  55. [59]

    Hofer et al.,High-Q Magnetic Levitation and Control of Superconducting Microspheres at Millikelvin Temperatures,Phys

    J. Hofer et al.,High-Q Magnetic Levitation and Control of Superconducting Microspheres at Millikelvin Temperatures,Phys. Rev. Lett.131(2023) 043603 [2211.06289]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  56. [60]

    Schmidt et al.,Remote sensing of a levitated superconductor with a flux-tunable microwave cavity,Phys

    P. Schmidt et al.,Remote sensing of a levitated superconductor with a flux-tunable microwave cavity,Phys. Rev. Applied22(2024) 014078 [2401.08854]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  57. [61]

    Janse, D.G

    M. Janse, D.G. Uitenbroek, L. van Everdingen, J. Plugge, B. Hensen and T.H. Oosterkamp, Current experimental upper bounds on spacetime diffusion,Phys. Rev. Res.6(2024) 033076 [2403.08912]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  58. [62]

    Qin and R.F

    J. Qin and R.F. Lang,Fast estimation of the look-elsewhere effect using Gaussian random fields,Eur. Phys. J. C83(2023) 1029 [2306.01713]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  59. [63]

    Salumbides, W

    E.J. Salumbides, W. Ubachs and V.I. Korobov,Bounds on fifth forces at the sub-Angstrom length scale,J. Molec. Spectrosc.300(2014) 65 [1308.1711]. – 29 –

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014