pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2604.23879 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-26 · ✦ hep-ph

Recognition: unknown

Searching for ultralight bosons with Josephson junction interferometry

Djuna Croon , Tanmay Kumar Poddar
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 05:42 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ✦ hep-ph
keywords ultralight bosonsJosephson junctionsphase shiftsscalar interactionsaxion potentialsprecision interferometrylong-range forcesmixed couplings
0
0 comments X

The pith

Josephson junction interferometry can detect phase shifts from ultralight boson potentials at centimeter to micrometer scales.

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

The paper proposes three experimental setups that use Josephson junctions to measure phase shifts caused by long-range potentials generated by ultralight bosons around macroscopic sources. These potentials arise from photophilic scalar interactions, Lorentz-violating scalar-mediated forces, and axion-mediated monopole-dipole couplings, depending on whether the source is unpolarized or polarized. Precision current measurements in the junctions would reveal the induced phase shifts. The approach targets mixed couplings and length scales that remain largely unconstrained by prior experiments.

Core claim

Ultralight bosons sourced by macroscopic objects produce spin-independent and spin-dependent potentials that induce measurable phase shifts in Josephson junctions. Three scenarios are outlined: unpolarized sources for photophilic scalars and Lorentz-violating scalars, and polarized sources for axion monopole-dipole interactions. The setups achieve sensitivity to these novel mixed couplings through precision current measurements.

What carries the argument

Phase shift induced by boson potentials in Josephson junctions, detected via precision current measurements.

If this is right

  • The setups can probe mixed couplings that lack existing experimental bounds.
  • New forces become accessible at length scales from centimeters down to micrometers.
  • Different source polarizations select distinct interaction types without requiring new detector technology.
  • Precision current measurements replace more complex optical or mechanical interferometers for these searches.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Similar junctions could be adapted to test other hypothetical long-range forces if the phase-shift mechanism holds.
  • Combining these measurements with existing torsion-balance data would tighten bounds on the same couplings at overlapping scales.
  • If no signal appears, the null result would exclude previously allowed parameter space for ultralight bosons in specific models.

Load-bearing premise

The phase shifts from the boson potentials must exceed the noise and systematic limits of the proposed Josephson junction current measurements.

What would settle it

A direct calculation showing that the expected phase shift for any boson mass and coupling within the target range falls below the noise floor of existing or proposed Josephson junction interferometers.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.23879 by Djuna Croon, Tanmay Kumar Poddar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic of a tabletop experiment featuring a mag view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Projected sensitivities to the electron-scalar-photon view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Schematic of a tabletop experiment featuring a plate view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Projected sensitivity to the scalar-mediated Lorentz view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Projected sensitivity to the axion-mediated view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Ultralight bosons sourced by macroscopic objects can generate long-range spin-independent and spin-dependent potentials that are accessible to precision interferometry. Such potentials induce phase shifts in Josephson junctions, detectable through precision current measurements. We propose three experimental scenarios to probe photophilic scalar interactions, Lorentz-violating scalar-mediated interactions, and axion-mediated monopole-dipole interactions, depending on the nature (unpolarized or polarized) of the source. The proposed setups provide sensitivities to novel mixed couplings that are largely unconstrained by existing bounds and enables the exploration of new forces at centimeter to micrometer length scales.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes three Josephson-junction interferometry setups to search for ultralight bosons by detecting phase shifts induced in the junctions by long-range potentials sourced by macroscopic objects. The scenarios target photophilic scalar interactions (unpolarized source), Lorentz-violating scalar-mediated interactions, and axion-mediated monopole-dipole interactions (polarized source), with the central claim that these enable access to novel mixed couplings largely unconstrained by existing bounds at centimeter-to-micrometer length scales.

Significance. If the induced phase shifts prove detectable above realistic noise and systematics, the approach would open a new experimental window on ultralight boson interactions at short ranges, particularly mixed couplings that are poorly constrained by torsion-balance, neutron, or atomic experiments. The proposal builds on standard Josephson physics and boson potential forms without introducing new free parameters or ad-hoc entities.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (proposed scenarios): The claim that the setups 'provide sensitivities to novel mixed couplings that are largely unconstrained' and 'enable the exploration of new forces at centimeter to micrometer length scales' is not supported by any explicit calculation of the expected phase shift δφ, comparison to measured Josephson current noise, or projected exclusion contours. Without these, the asserted experimental reach cannot be evaluated.
  2. [§2] §2 (potential forms and phase-shift relation): The mapping from the boson-induced potential V(r) to the junction phase shift is stated qualitatively but lacks a derivation of the integral over the junction area or an estimate of the required source mass and distance to produce a measurable δφ above 10^{-6} rad (typical for precision Josephson devices). This step is load-bearing for all three scenarios.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract and introduction would benefit from a single sentence stating the order-of-magnitude phase shift expected for a 1 kg source at 1 cm, even if only illustrative.
  2. [§1] Notation for the mixed coupling constants (e.g., g_{φγ} or g_{aN}) is introduced without a compact table comparing them to existing limits from other experiments.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We agree that the manuscript's claims about experimental reach require quantitative backing through explicit phase-shift calculations and noise comparisons, which were not sufficiently detailed in the original submission. We will revise the paper to address both major points.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and §3] Abstract and §3 (proposed scenarios): The claim that the setups 'provide sensitivities to novel mixed couplings that are largely unconstrained' and 'enable the exploration of new forces at centimeter to micrometer length scales' is not supported by any explicit calculation of the expected phase shift δφ, comparison to measured Josephson current noise, or projected exclusion contours. Without these, the asserted experimental reach cannot be evaluated.

    Authors: We accept this assessment. The original text presented the conceptual framework and potential forms but omitted the required quantitative projections. In the revision we will insert explicit calculations of δφ for each scenario (photophilic scalar, Lorentz-violating scalar, and axion monopole-dipole), compare the results to realistic Josephson phase noise floors (∼10^{-6} rad and below), and add projected exclusion contours in the coupling-mass plane. These additions will directly support the statements about novel mixed couplings at cm-to-μm scales. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§2] §2 (potential forms and phase-shift relation): The mapping from the boson-induced potential V(r) to the junction phase shift is stated qualitatively but lacks a derivation of the integral over the junction area or an estimate of the required source mass and distance to produce a measurable δφ above 10^{-6} rad (typical for precision Josephson devices). This step is load-bearing for all three scenarios.

    Authors: We agree that this derivation is essential. We will expand §2 with the full integral expression for the phase shift, obtained by integrating the boson potential V(r) over the junction area while accounting for the finite size, coherence length, and geometry of the Josephson junction. We will also supply order-of-magnitude estimates of the source mass, separation, and (where relevant) polarization needed to exceed the 10^{-6} rad threshold, using standard macroscopic materials or polarized sources. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; forward experimental proposal

full rationale

The manuscript is a theoretical proposal for three Josephson-junction interferometry setups targeting ultralight boson potentials. It outlines induced phase shifts from scalar, Lorentz-violating, and axion-mediated interactions and estimates experimental reach in terms of mixed couplings at cm-to-μm scales. No derivation chain, parameter fitting, or self-citation load-bearing step is present; the central claims are sensitivity projections conditioned on detectable phase shifts above noise, with no internal reduction of outputs to inputs by construction. The work is self-contained as a forward-looking experimental design without fitted results or renamed empirical patterns.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The proposal assumes standard quantum mechanics of Josephson junctions and effective field theory potentials from ultralight bosons; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced by the paper itself.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Josephson junctions respond to external potentials via phase shifts in the superconducting current
    Invoked in the description of detectable phase shifts through precision current measurements.
  • domain assumption Ultralight bosons generate long-range spin-independent or spin-dependent potentials from macroscopic sources
    Central premise for all three proposed scenarios.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5388 in / 1237 out tokens · 43185 ms · 2026-05-08T05:42:03.925806+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Detectability of ultralight scalar field dark matter with gravitational-wave detectors,

    S. Morisaki and T. Suyama, “Detectability of ultralight scalar field dark matter with gravitational-wave detectors,”Phys. Rev. D100no. 12, (2019) 123512, 12 arXiv:1811.05003 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Searching for a fifth force with atomic and nuclear clocks,

    D. Brzeminski, Z. Chacko, A. Dev, I. Flood, and A. Hook, “Searching for a fifth force with atomic and nuclear clocks,”Phys. Rev. D106no. 9, (2022) 095031, arXiv:2207.14310 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, “CP Conservation in the Presence of Instantons,”Phys. Rev. Lett.38(1977) 1440–1443

    1977

  4. [4]

    A New Light Boson?,

    S. Weinberg, “A New Light Boson?,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 40(1978) 223–226

    1978

  5. [5]

    Vector gauge boson radiation from compact binary systems in a gaugedL µ −L τ scenario,

    T. Kumar Poddar, S. Mohanty, and S. Jana, “Vector gauge boson radiation from compact binary systems in a gaugedL µ −L τ scenario,”Phys. Rev. D100no. 12, (2019) 123023,arXiv:1908.09732 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Constraints on hidden gravitons from fifth-force experiments and stellar energy loss,

    J. A. R. Cembranos, A. L. Maroto, and H. Villarrubia-Rojo, “Constraints on hidden gravitons from fifth-force experiments and stellar energy loss,” JHEP09(2017) 104,arXiv:1706.07818 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  7. [7]

    NEW MACROSCOPIC FORCES?,

    J. E. Moody and F. Wilczek, “NEW MACROSCOPIC FORCES?,”Phys. Rev. D30(1984) 130

    1984

  8. [8]

    cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits

    C. O’Hare, “cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits.” https://cajohare.github.io/AxionLimits/, July, 2020

    2020

  9. [9]

    Six years of the fifth force,

    E. Fischbach and C. Talmadge, “Six years of the fifth force,”Nature356no. 6366, (Mar, 1992) 207–215. https://doi.org/10.1038/356207a0

    work page doi:10.1038/356207a0 1992

  10. [10]

    Torsion balance experiments: A low-energy frontier of particle physics,

    E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, B. R. Heckel, S. Hoedl, and S. Schlamminger, “Torsion balance experiments: A low-energy frontier of particle physics,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys.62(2009) 102–134

    2009

  11. [11]

    Cold and Fuzzy Dark Matter

    W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, “Cold and fuzzy dark matter,”Phys. Rev. Lett.85(2000) 1158–1161, arXiv:astro-ph/0003365

    work page Pith review arXiv 2000

  12. [12]

    Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter

    L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, “Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D95no. 4, (2017) 043541,arXiv:1610.08297 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Cornering the axion withCP-violating interactions,

    C. A. J. O’Hare and E. Vitagliano, “Cornering the axion withCP-violating interactions,”Phys. Rev. D102 no. 11, (2020) 115026,arXiv:2010.03889 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  14. [14]

    Spin-dependent exotic interactions,

    L. Conget al., “Spin-dependent exotic interactions,” Rev. Mod. Phys.97no. 2, (2025) 025005, arXiv:2408.15691 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  15. [15]

    Unveiling dark fifth forces with linear cosmology,

    M. Archidiacono, E. Castorina, D. Redigolo, and E. Salvioni, “Unveiling dark fifth forces with linear cosmology,”JCAP10(2022) 074,arXiv:2204.08484 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page arXiv 2022

  16. [16]

    Novel constraints on fifth forces and ultralight dark sector with asteroidal data,

    Y.-D. Tsai, Y. Wu, S. Vagnozzi, and L. Visinelli, “Novel constraints on fifth forces and ultralight dark sector with asteroidal data,”JCAP04(2023) 031, arXiv:2107.04038 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  17. [17]

    Constraints on fifth forces and ultralight dark matter from OSIRIS-REx target asteroid Bennu,

    Y.-D. Tsai, D. Farnocchia, M. Micheli, S. Vagnozzi, and L. Visinelli, “Constraints on fifth forces and ultralight dark matter from OSIRIS-REx target asteroid Bennu,” Commun. Phys.7no. 1, (2024) 311,arXiv:2309.13106 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  18. [18]

    Constraints on axionic fuzzy dark matter from light bending and Shapiro time delay,

    T. K. Poddar, “Constraints on axionic fuzzy dark matter from light bending and Shapiro time delay,” JCAP09(2021) 041,arXiv:2104.09772 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    Probing axions with neutron star inspirals and other stellar processes,

    A. Hook and J. Huang, “Probing axions with neutron star inspirals and other stellar processes,”JHEP06 (2018) 036,arXiv:1708.08464 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2018

  20. [20]

    Exorcising ghosts with gravitational waves: cases of ghostful and ghost-free fourth-order gravity,

    G. Lambiase, S. Mukohyama, T. K. Poddar, and A. C. Rescigno, “Exorcising ghosts with gravitational waves: cases of ghostful and ghost-free fourth-order gravity,” arXiv:2510.17789 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv

  21. [21]

    Limits on new Lorentz-violating bosons,

    P. Carenza, J. Jaeckel, G. Lucente, T. K. Poddar, N. Sherrill, and M. Spannowsky, “Limits on new Lorentz-violating bosons,”JHEP08(2025) 213, arXiv:2502.05263 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  22. [22]

    Listening to dark sirens from gravitational waves : Combined effects of fifth force, ultralight particle radiation, and eccentricity,

    T. K. Poddar, A. Ghoshal, and G. Lambiase, “Listening to dark sirens from gravitational waves : Combined effects of fifth force, ultralight particle radiation, and eccentricity,”Phys. Dark Univ.46(2024) 101651, arXiv:2302.14513 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Constraints on long range force from perihelion precession of planets in a gaugedL e −L µ,τ scenario,

    T. Kumar Poddar, S. Mohanty, and S. Jana, “Constraints on long range force from perihelion precession of planets in a gaugedL e −L µ,τ scenario,” Eur. Phys. J. C81no. 4, (2021) 286, arXiv:2002.02935 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  24. [24]

    Constraints on ultralight axions from compact binary systems,

    T. Kumar Poddar, S. Mohanty, and S. Jana, “Constraints on ultralight axions from compact binary systems,”Phys. Rev. D101no. 8, (2020) 083007, arXiv:1906.00666 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    Torsion-balance tests of the weak equivalence principle,

    T. A. Wagner, S. Schlamminger, J. H. Gundlach, and E. G. Adelberger, “Torsion-balance tests of the weak equivalence principle,”Class. Quant. Grav.29(2012) 184002,arXiv:1207.2442 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2012

  26. [26]

    Limits on the Axial Coupling Constant of New Light Bosons,

    F. M. Piegsa and G. Pignol, “Limits on the Axial Coupling Constant of New Light Bosons,”Phys. Rev. Lett.108(2012) 181801,arXiv:1205.0340 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2012

  27. [27]

    Probing the frontiers of particle physics with tabletop-scale experiments,

    D. DeMille, J. M. Doyle, and A. O. Sushkov, “Probing the frontiers of particle physics with tabletop-scale experiments,”Science357no. 6355, (2017) 990–994

    2017

  28. [28]

    Proposal for the search for new spin interactions at the micrometer scale using diamond quantum sensors,

    P. H. Chu, N. Ristoff, J. Smits, N. Jackson, Y. J. Kim, I. Savukov, and V. M. Acosta, “Proposal for the search for new spin interactions at the micrometer scale using diamond quantum sensors,”Phys. Rev. Res.4no. 2, (2022) 023162,arXiv:2112.14882 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  29. [29]

    Proposal for the search for exotic spin-spin interactions at the micrometer scale using functionalized cantilever force sensors,

    Q. Wang, Z. Ouyang, Y. Lu, J. Wang, L. Zhu, and P. Luo, “Proposal for the search for exotic spin-spin interactions at the micrometer scale using functionalized cantilever force sensors,”Phys. Rev. D 107no. 1, (2023) 015005,arXiv:2212.11546 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2023

  30. [30]

    Superconducting Cloud Chamber,

    B. Gao, J. Sheng, and T. T. Yanagida, “Superconducting Cloud Chamber,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 136no. 6, (2026) 061801,arXiv:2502.16437 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2026

  31. [31]

    Electromagnetic Quantum Memory Printed by Gravity,

    J. Sheng, T. T. Yanagida, B. Gao, and H. Ding, “Electromagnetic Quantum Memory Printed by Gravity,”arXiv:2511.02363 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv

  32. [32]

    Searching for axions with quantum interferometry

    T. K. Poddar and M. Spannowsky, “Searching for axions with quantum interferometry,” arXiv:2604.13181 [hep-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv

  33. [33]

    Detecting a fifth-force gauge boson via superconducting Josephson junctions,

    Y. Cheng, J. Sheng, and T. T. Yanagida, “Detecting a fifth-force gauge boson via superconducting Josephson junctions,”Phys. Lett. B860(2025) 139156, arXiv:2402.14514 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Proposal for a quantum mechanical test of gravity at millimeter scale,

    Y. Cheng, J. Lin, J. Sheng, and T. T. Yanagida, “Proposal for a quantum mechanical test of gravity at millimeter scale,”Sci. Rep.14no. 1, (2024) 30985, arXiv:2405.16222 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling,

    B. Josephson, “Possible new effects in superconductive tunnelling,”Physics Letters1no. 7, (1962) 251–253. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ pii/0031916362913690

    work page arXiv 1962

  36. [36]

    The discovery of tunnelling supercurrents,

    B. D. Josephson, “The discovery of tunnelling supercurrents,”Rev. Mod. Phys.46(Apr, 1974) 251–254.https: 13 //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/RevModPhys.46.251

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.46.251 1974

  37. [37]

    V. L. Ginzburg and L. D. Landau,On the Theory of Superconductivity, pp. 113–137. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-68008-6_4

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-68008-6_4 2009

  38. [38]

    Josephson effect and superconducting electronics,

    R. Gross and A. Marx, “Josephson effect and superconducting electronics,”.https: //www.wmi.badw.de/fileadmin/WMI/Lecturenotes/ Applied_Superconductivity/AS_Chapter5.pdf

  39. [39]

    Foundations of applied superconductivity,

    T. P. Orlando, K. A. Delin, and C. J. Lobb, “Foundations of applied superconductivity,” 1991

    1991

  40. [40]

    Tunneling Between Superconductors,

    V. Ambegaokar and A. Baratoff, “Tunneling Between Superconductors,”Phys. Rev. Lett.10(1963) 486–489

    1963

  41. [41]

    High-performance dc squid read-out electronics,

    D. Drung, “High-performance dc squid read-out electronics,”Physica C: Superconductivity368no. 1, (2002) 134–140.https://www.sciencedirect.com/ science/article/pii/S0921453401011546

    2002

  42. [42]

    Deppner, W

    C. Deppner, W. Herr, M. Cornelius, P. Stromberger, T. Sternke, C. Grzeschik, A. Grote, J. Rudolph, S. Herrmann, M. Krutzik, A. Wenzlawski, R. Corgier, E. Charron, D. Gu´ ery-Odelin, N. Gaaloul, C. L¨ ammerzahl, A. Peters, P. Windpassinger, and E. M. Rasel, “Collective-mode enhanced matter-wave optics,” Phys. Rev. Lett.127(Aug, 2021) 100401.https:// link.a...

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.127.100401 2021

  43. [43]

    Detecting Planck-Scale Dark Matter with Quantum Interference,

    M. Christodoulou, A. Perez, and C. Rovelli, “Detecting Planck-Scale Dark Matter with Quantum Interference,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133no. 11, (2024) 111001, arXiv:2309.08238 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2024

  44. [44]

    Casimir and van der Waals forces: Advances and problems,

    G. L. Klimchitskaya and V. M. Mostepanenko, “Casimir and van der Waals forces: Advances and problems,” arXiv:1507.02393 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv

  45. [45]

    Critical Casimir effect: Exact results,

    D. M. Dantchev and S. Dietrich, “Critical Casimir effect: Exact results,”Phys. Rept.1005(2023) 1–130, arXiv:2203.15050 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    work page arXiv 2023

  46. [46]

    Measurement of gravitational coupling between millimetre-sized masses,

    T. Westphal, H. Hepach, J. Pfaff, and M. Aspelmeyer, “Measurement of gravitational coupling between millimetre-sized masses,”Nature591no. 7849, (Mar,

  47. [47]

    Measurement of gravitational coupling between millimetre-sized masses , volume =

    225–228. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03250-7

    work page doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03250-7

  48. [48]

    Constraining electromagnetic couplings of ultralight scalars from compact stars,

    T. K. Poddar and A. Dighe, “Constraining electromagnetic couplings of ultralight scalars from compact stars,”arXiv:2501.02286 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv

  49. [49]

    Pulsar electrodynamics,

    P. Goldreich and W. H. Julian, “Pulsar electrodynamics,”Astrophys. J.157(1969) 869

    1969

  50. [50]

    S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky,Black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars: The physics of compact objects. Wiley-VCH, 1983

    1983

  51. [51]

    The electromagnetic equations of the supraconductor,

    F. London and H. London, “The electromagnetic equations of the supraconductor,”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences149no. 866, (Mar, 1935) 71–88. https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1935.0048

    work page doi:10.1098/rspa.1935.0048 1935

  52. [52]

    Coherent states and the number-phase uncertainty relation,

    P. Carruthers and M. M. Nieto, “Coherent states and the number-phase uncertainty relation,”Phys. Rev. Lett.14(Mar, 1965) 387–389.https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.387

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.14.387 1965

  53. [53]

    Violation of the equivalence principle from light scalar dark matter,

    A. Hees, O. Minazzoli, E. Savalle, Y. V. Stadnik, and P. Wolf, “Violation of the equivalence principle from light scalar dark matter,”Phys. Rev. D98no. 6, (2018) 064051,arXiv:1807.04512 [gr-qc]

    work page arXiv 2018

  54. [54]

    Constraints on monopole-dipole potential from tests of gravity,

    T. K. Poddar and D. Pachhar, “Constraints on monopole-dipole potential from tests of gravity,”Phys. Rev. D108no. 10, (2023) 103024,arXiv:2302.03882 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  55. [55]

    Applications in josephson junctions, squids, and meg. other low field applications,

    J. V. Yakhmi, “Applications in josephson junctions, squids, and meg. other low field applications,” 2021. https://doi.org/10.1088/978-0-7503-2256-0ch5

    work page doi:10.1088/978-0-7503-2256-0ch5 2021

  56. [56]

    Clarke and A

    J. Clarke and A. I. Braginski,The SQUID Handbook Fundamentals and Technology of SQUIDs and SQUID Systems, vol. 1. Wiley-VCH, Weinheim, 2006. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do? ptiID=481572

    2006

  57. [57]

    Superconducting quantum interference device instruments and applications,

    R. L. Fagaly, “Superconducting quantum interference device instruments and applications,”Review of Scientific Instruments77(2006) 101101.https: //api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:27828986

    2006

  58. [58]

    Lorentz and CPT Violation in Scalar-Mediated Potentials,

    B. Altschul, “Lorentz and CPT Violation in Scalar-Mediated Potentials,”Phys. Rev. D87no. 4, (2013) 045012,arXiv:1211.6614 [hep-th]

    work page arXiv 2013

  59. [59]

    Preferred-Frame and CP-Violation Tests with Polarized Electrons,

    B. R. Heckel, E. G. Adelberger, C. E. Cramer, T. S. Cook, S. Schlamminger, and U. Schmidt, “Preferred-Frame and CP-Violation Tests with Polarized Electrons,”Phys. Rev. D78(2008) 092006, arXiv:0808.2673 [hep-ex]

    work page arXiv 2008

  60. [60]

    The sign of the dipole–dipole potential by axion exchange,

    R. Daido and F. Takahashi, “The sign of the dipole–dipole potential by axion exchange,”Phys. Lett. B772(2017) 127–129,arXiv:1704.00155 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  61. [61]

    COULD GOLDSTONE BOSONS GENERATE AN OBSERVABLE 1/R POTENTIAL?,

    D. Chang, R. N. Mohapatra, and S. Nussinov, “COULD GOLDSTONE BOSONS GENERATE AN OBSERVABLE 1/R POTENTIAL?,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 55(1985) 2835

    1985

  62. [62]

    Aspects of a Superlight Grand Unified Axion,

    R. Barbieri, R. N. Mohapatra, D. V. Nanopoulos, and D. Wyler, “Aspects of a Superlight Grand Unified Axion,”Phys. Lett. B107(1981) 80–84

    1981

  63. [63]

    Stellar cooling bounds on new light particles: plasma mixing effects,

    E. Hardy and R. Lasenby, “Stellar cooling bounds on new light particles: plasma mixing effects,”JHEP02 (2017) 033,arXiv:1611.05852 [hep-ph]

    work page arXiv 2017

  64. [64]

    Axion and neutrino bounds improved with new calibrations of the tip of the red-giant branch using geometric distance determinations,

    F. Capozzi and G. Raffelt, “Axion and neutrino bounds improved with new calibrations of the tip of the red-giant branch using geometric distance determinations,”Phys. Rev. D102no. 8, (2020) 083007,arXiv:2007.03694 [astro-ph.SR]

    work page arXiv 2020

  65. [65]

    The QUAX-g p gs experiment to search for monopole-dipole Axion interaction,

    N. Crescini, C. Braggio, G. Carugno, P. Falferi, A. Ortolan, and G. Ruoso, “The QUAX-g p gs experiment to search for monopole-dipole Axion interaction,”Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A842(2017) 109–113,arXiv:1606.04751 [physics.ins-det]

    work page arXiv 2017