Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Dark Matter Nuclear Magnetic Resonance is Sensitive to Dark Photons and the Axion-Photon Coupling

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that NMR-based dark matter searches, built for the axion-nucleon coupling, are intrinsically sensitive to dark photons and the axion-photon coupling, with projected reaches of ε ~ 3 × 10^-16 and g_aγγ ~ 2 × 10^-16 GeV^-1…

desk verdict A clearly explained, honest projection paper that identifies a genuinely new multi-signal capability for CASPEr-Gradient, but whose headline numbers sit exactly at the boundary of the paper's own quasi-static validity claim. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.15897 v1 pith:AECNBRKJ submitted 2025-05-21 hep-ph astro-ph.COhep-ex

Carl Beadle , Sebastian A. R. Ellis , Jacob M. Leedom , Nicholas L. Rodd This is my paper
classification hep-phastro-ph.COhep-ex
keywords darkmatternuclearmagneticresonancephotonaxion-photoncouplingkineticmixingCASPEr-Gradientspinprecessionultralight
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 NMR-based dark matter searches, built to detect the axion-nucleon coupling, already carry intrinsic sensitivity to dark photons and the axion-photon coupling. The reason is that a hyperpolarised spin ensemble cannot tell whether the magnetic field that tips it is effective (from an axion gradient) or real (from a dark photon or axion-photon conversion). The paper shows that if the CASPEr-Gradient experiment reaches the QCD axion prediction for the axion-nucleon coupling, the same setup would also probe kinetic mixing ε ~ 3e-16 and axion-photon coupling g_aγγ ~ 2e-16 $GeV^{-1}$ near mass 1 μeV. The three signals are spatially distinguishable, which provides a way to separate the dark photon and axion-photon contributions from the canonical axion-nucleon signal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the equivalence between an effective and a real magnetic field in the Bloch equations: the axion-nucleon coupling produces an effective field $B_{aN} = g_N (2/\gamma)\nabla a$, while dark photons and axion-photon conversion produce real magnetic fields that drive the same spin precession. The real fields are computed by decomposing the shielded region into cylindrical cavity modes; only the lowest modes ($\mathrm{TM}_{010}$ driven by $A'_z$ and by the axion-photon current, $\mathrm{TE}_{111}$ driven by $A'_{x,y}$) are excited, and their spatial profiles set the optimal sample placement and the signal's distinguishing signature. Sensitivity is set by comparing the driven transverse magnetization against spin-projection noise, with the parametric estimate $H_{\rm DM} \sim (v/\gamma)\sqrt{m/(n T_2 V)}$.

What would settle it

A controlled current source inside a similar shield should reproduce the predicted TM010 and TE111 mode profiles and the ϵ $m^{2}$ L field scaling; if those profiles or the scaling differ, the quoted ε and g_aγγ reaches are not reliable.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that any nuclear magnetic resonance search for axion dark matter that relies on a hyperpolarised spin sample in a magnetically shielded region is inherently sensitive to two other ultralight dark matter candidates: the kinetically mixed dark photon and the axion coupled to photons. The same spin ensemble that would feel the effective magnetic field from the axion-nucleon gradient feels a real magnetic field generated by dark photons penetrating the shield or by axion-photon conversion in the background field. If CASPEr-Gradient reaches the QCD axion prediction for the axion-nucleon coupling, it would simultaneously reach kinetic mixing ε ≈ 3 × $10^{-16}$ and axion-photon coupling g_aγγ ≈ 2 × $10^{-16}$ $GeV^{-1}$ at a mass m ≈ 1 μeV. The three signals are distinguishable by their spatial profiles: the axion-nucleon signal is homogeneous, while the dark-photon and axion-photon signals excite specific cavity modes (TM010 and TE111) that vary across the shielded volume.

Load-bearing premise

The quoted reach rests on treating the shielded region as a perfect conducting cavity in the quasi-static limit, with the spin sample too small to load the cavity; this assumption is only marginally valid near m ~ 1 μeV, and the paper states the sensitivity breaks down above about 1 μeV.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Reaching the QCD axion in the axion-nucleon channel automatically constrains dark-photon kinetic mixing and the axion-photon coupling at levels competitive with dedicated haloscopes and astrophysical bounds near 1 μeV.
  • All three searches can run concurrently in the same instrument, with no additional hardware, because they use the same spin sample and readout.
  • The spatial profile of the induced field provides a handle for distinguishing a dark-photon signal from an axion-nucleon signal and for mapping the dark-photon polarization.
  • The dark-photon sensitivity scales with spin density and the product $n T_2 V$ rather than with the magnetic-field volume, so improvements in sample polarization and coherence directly strengthen the dark-photon reach.
  • The projected sensitivity degrades for masses above about 1 μeV, where the quasi-static cavity description breaks down.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: The same equivalence argument should apply to other spin-based detectors that use shielded samples, including comagnetometers and SQUID-coupled magnetometers, so existing data could be re-analysed for dark-photon and axion-photon signals without new running time.
  • Editorial inference: Because the TM010 and TE111 modes have known spatial profiles, a null search could be used to set direction-dependent limits on the dark-photon polarization, effectively constraining the local dark-matter velocity distribution's polarization structure.
  • Editorial inference: If the sensitivity scaling with T2 holds, extending the transverse relaxation time (e.g., with spin-echo sequences or quantum resources) would directly improve the dark-photon and axion-photon reach, not just the axion-nucleon reach.
  • Editorial inference: A dedicated calibration run with a controlled current source inside the shield could validate the mode-excitation formalism and turn the projected limits into a robust experimental program.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that CASPEr-Gradient-style axion-nucleon NMR searches are intrinsically sensitive to dark photon dark matter and to the axion-photon coupling, because a real oscillating magnetic field in the shielded volume couples to the spin sample in exactly the same way as the effective magnetic field generated by the axion-nucleon gradient. It provides parametric scalings (Eqs. (1), (2), (9), (11)), a cylindrical-cavity mode decomposition of the induced fields, and projected 95% exclusion reaches for Xe-129 and He-3 samples under two line-width assumptions. The headline claim is that if CASPEr-Gradient reaches the QCD axion prediction for the axion-nucleon coupling, it will simultaneously be sensitive to kinetic mixing eps ~ 3e-16 and axion-photon coupling g_aγγ ~ 2e-16 GeV^-1 at m ~ 1 micro-eV. The Supplemental Material derives the Bloch-equation response, the driven cavity modes, the microscopic origin of relaxation, and the spin-projection noise from the fluctuation-dissipation theorem.

Significance. If the central projection holds, this is a valuable and timely result: it converts a single-purpose axion-nucleon experiment into a three-channel ultralight dark matter detector, with spatial profiles that can in principle be used to discriminate signal types. The derivations in the paper and SM are largely first-principles, including a self-contained Bloch-equation treatment, cavity mode selection rules, and a fluctuation-dissipation derivation of the spin noise. The paper also gives explicit parameter dependencies rather than hiding them in black-box simulations, which makes the projections reproducible and falsifiable. The experimental parameters are inherited from Ref. [14], and the claim is presented as a projection rather than an achieved limit, which is appropriate. The main caveat is that the headline numbers are quoted at a mass where the paper's own quasi-static cavity condition is only marginally satisfied, and the high-mass end of the He-3 curve extends beyond the stated breakdown; this needs to be resolved before the central numbers can be considered established.

major comments (2)
  1. [Dark Photon NMR, paragraph after Eq. (9)] The paper's quasi-static treatment is defined by mL << 1, but the headline sensitivity at m ~ 1 micro-eV and the He-3 curve in Fig. 1 are not in that regime. For the stated shield geometry (R = 9 cm, L_z = 18 cm), mL_z ~ 0.9 and mR ~ 0.5 at m = 1 micro-eV, while the He-3 curve with gamma = 32 MHz/T and Hmax = 20 T extends to m ~ 2.6 micro-eV. The statement that this breakdown is irrelevant because the largest observable mass is below the point where the Q-factor must be specified is not consistent with the He-3 parameters, for which the maximum scan field gives m ~ 2.6 micro-eV, above the declared 1 micro-eV breakdown. Please either restrict the quoted numbers to m << omega_010 ~ 5.3 micro-eV (for R = 9 cm) with a quantitative estimate of the O(m^2/omega_l^2) corrections, or demonstrate explicitly that the full cavity mode-sum in the SM reproduces the Fig. 1 curves at m ~ 1 micro-eV and at the upper end of the He-3 curve.
  2. [Discussion and Fig. 2] The claim that the three signals are distinguishable is not established for all dark photon polarizations. A dark photon polarized along the cylinder axis and the axion-photon signal both excite the TM010 mode via Eq. (10), and therefore have identical spatial profiles in Fig. 2. Moving the sample can separate the axion-nucleon (homogeneous) signal from the TM010 signal, and can identify dark photon polarizations with a non-zero TE111 component, but it cannot distinguish a z-polarized dark photon from an axion-photon signal. Please qualify the distinguishability claim or provide an additional observable, such as the different dependence of the two signals on the background field B0, that breaks this degeneracy.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption states that the reach assumes a single TM mode, but the main text also discusses the TE111 mode for transverse dark photon polarizations. Please state explicitly what polarization of the dark photon is assumed for the projections, since a randomly polarized dark photon would reduce the single-mode reach by an O(1) factor and would require a separate TE111 search to recover the full sensitivity.
  2. [SM Sec. S.III A] The neglect of the spin sample's loading of the cavity is asserted but not quantified; since the sample is hyperpolarized and not a passive probe, it would be useful to give an estimate of the frequency shift and damping it induces in the TM010 and TE111 modes.
  3. [SM Sec. S.II] There is a typo in the opening paragraph: 'has appeared int the literature' should read 'has appeared in the literature.'
  4. [Acknowledgments] The sentence 'providing technical regarding the CASPEr-Gradient instrument' is missing a word; it should be 'providing technical details regarding.'
  5. [Main text, after Eq. (8)] The description of the high-mass scaling assumes that a part-per-million line width gives T2 proportional to 1/m; this should be made explicit in the main text, since it is the reason the dashed curves in Fig. 1 are approximately flat.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dark-photon and axion-photon reaches are derived from the Bloch-equation sensitivity formula and a cavity-mode calculation, not re-imported from the axion-nucleon projection.

full rationale

The central sensitivity formula Eq. (8) is derived in the paper from the Bloch equations (Eqs. (4)-(6)) and a fluctuation-dissipation treatment of spin projection noise (SM S.V); it is not assumed as the target result. The dark-photon magnetic field in a shielded region, B_A' ~ epsilon m^2 L A', is a standard quasi-static cavity result (Ref. [16]) that the paper re-derives through the mode decomposition in SM S.III, including the TM010/TE111 selection rules and geometric factors used in Fig. 1. The axion-photon field H_DM ~ g_aγγ B0 L (∂t a) follows from the standard L_aγγ interaction and the same cavity calculation. The quoted epsilon and g_aγγ values are conditional projections obtained by setting these derived fields equal to the axion-nucleon effective field at the QCD target; this is a translation of sensitivity, not a fit or a renaming of the target. Ref. [14], which shares authors, supplies the axion-nucleon benchmark curve and the likelihood construction, but the dark-photon and axion-photon sensitivities would stand unchanged if that benchmark were replaced, and the paper's own Eqs. (9)-(11) contain the entire reduction. The mL<<1 breakdown caveat is a physical validity assumption rather than a circular step, so it belongs in a correctness assessment, not a circularity score.

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

The central projections rest on standard spin and cavity physics plus a set of experiment-specific parameters, including T2, spin density, field strength, geometry, and full polarisation, taken from prior CASPEr literature rather than derived in this paper. No new particles or entities are introduced. The most fragile inputs are the combination of spin-projection-noise dominance and the quasi-static cavity treatment near m ~ 1 micro-eV.

free parameters (5)
  • Transverse relaxation time T2 = 100 s for solid curves; frequency-dependent T2 ~ 1/m for ppm-limited dashed curves
    Taken from CASPEr projections in Refs. [14,48]; sensitivity scales as T2^-1/2, so this assumption directly sets the projected reach.
  • Spin density n = 1.3e22 cm^-3 for 129Xe; 2.8e22 cm^-3 for 3He
    Taken from the target samples; sensitivity scales as n^-1/2.
  • Maximum scan field Hmax = 10 T for 129Xe; 20 T for 3He
    Sets the maximum Larmor frequency and therefore the maximum scanned mass; used directly in the axion-photon projection.
  • Shield and sample geometry = Shield radius 9 cm, height 18 cm; sample height 3 cm, radius 2.5 cm
    Geometric inputs from CASPEr-Gradient; determine cavity mode frequencies, the factor-1.8 suppression, and the mL regime.
  • Spin polarization or M0 = M0 = n gamma / 2, a fully hyperpolarised sample
    The sensitivity estimate assumes full hyperpolarisation; reduced polarization would degrade the reach.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Dark matter is a non-relativistic, spatially coherent wave with local speed v ~ 1e-3 and energy density rho_DM, coherent over scales much larger than the experiment.
    Used throughout, including the treatment of the DM effective current as spatially uniform in Eq. (10) and the coherence-time scalings in Sec. S.II.
  • domain assumption The electromagnetic shield can be modeled as a perfect conductor at the DM frequencies, and the spin sample does not load the cavity.
    Used in the cavity mode decomposition in Sec. S.III; finite conductivity and sample loading would modify mode amplitudes and quality factors.
  • domain assumption Spin projection noise is the dominant background at the operating parameters considered.
    Invoked before Eq. (8); SQUID, thermal, and radiation-damping backgrounds are neglected for the projected curves.
  • standard math The Bloch equations and the fluctuation-dissipation description of spin noise are valid for a macroscopic hyperpolarised spin ensemble.
    Used to derive Eq. (8) and the noise power spectral density Eq. (7); detailed in SM Secs. S.II and S.V.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static limit mL << 1 for dark-photon induced fields, and B0 uniform over scale L for axion-photon induced currents.
    Used to write B_A' ~ epsilon m^2 L A' and H_DM ~ g_a-gamma-gamma B0 L (partial_t a); the assumption is marginal at the headline mass near 1 micro-eV.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Matter Nuclear Magnetic Resonance is Sensitive to Dark Photons and the Axion-Photon Coupling." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AECNBRKJ

@misc{pith2026250515897,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Matter Nuclear Magnetic Resonance is Sensitive to Dark Photons and the Axion-Photon Coupling},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AECNBRKJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.15897}
}
abstract

We demonstrate that nuclear magnetic resonance based searches for dark matter (DM) have intrinsic and powerful sensitivity to dark photons and the axion-photon coupling. The reason is conceptually straightforward. An instrument such as CASPEr-Gradient begins with a large sample of nuclear spins polarised in a background magnetic field. In the presence of axion DM coupled to nucleons, the spin ensemble feels an effective magnetic field $\mathbf{B} \propto \nabla a$ that tilts the spins, generating a potentially observable precession. If the magnetic field is real rather than effective, the system responds identically. A real field can be generated by a kinetically mixed dark photon within the shielded region the sample is placed or an axion coupled to photons through its interaction with the background magnetic field. We show that all three signals are detectable and distinguishable. If CASPEr-Gradient were to reach the QCD axion prediction of the axion-nucleon coupling, it would simultaneously be sensitive to kinetic mixings of $\epsilon \simeq 3 \times 10^{-16}$ and axion-photon couplings of $g_{a\gamma\gamma} \simeq 2 \times 10^{-16}\,{\rm GeV}^{-1}$ for $m \simeq 1\,\mu{\rm eV}$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.15897 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Projected reach of DM NMR to dark photons (left) and axions (right). Both searches can be performed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The profile of the physical magnetic fields DM could excite as compared the size of CASPEr’s sample of nuclear spins. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

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. Full citation record

  1. Suppressed Quantum Effects of Weakly Coupled Waves

    hep-ph 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Nonclassical (quantum) signatures of weakly coupled waves are suppressed by an extra power of the tiny conversion efficiency η (~10^-21 for axions, ~10^-33 for gravitons), so experiments cannot establish the quantizat...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [14]

    Sensitivity of Spin-Precession Axion Experiments,

    J. A. Dror, S. Gori, J. M. Leedom, and N. L. Rodd, “Sensitivity of Spin-Precession Axion Experiments,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 130 no. 18, (2023) 181801, arXiv:2210.06481 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  2. [1]

    Quantum description of wave dark matter,

    D. Y. Cheong, N. L. Rodd, and L.-T. Wang, “Quantum description of wave dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 111 no. 1, (2025) 015028, arXiv:2408.04696 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  3. [2]

    Cosmic axion background,

    J. A. Dror, H. Murayama, and N. L. Rodd, “Cosmic axion background,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 11, (2021) 115004, arXiv:2101.09287 [hep-ph]. [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 106, 119902 (2022)]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [3]

    Search for a dark-matter induced Cosmic Axion Background with ADMX

    ADMX Collaboration, T. Nitta et al. , “Search for a Dark-Matter-Induced Cosmic Axion Background with ADMX,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 no. 10, (2023) 101002, arXiv:2303.06282 [hep-ex]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

  5. [4]

    Detecting high-frequency gravitational waves with microwave cavities,

    A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. Tito D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn, and J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, “Detecting high-frequency gravitational waves with microwave cavities,” Phys. Rev. D 105 no. 11, (2022) 116011, arXiv:2112.11465 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  6. [5]

    Electromagnetic cavities as mechanical bars for gravitational waves,

    A. Berlin, D. Blas, R. Tito D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, R. Harnik, Y. Kahn, J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, and M. Wentzel, “Electromagnetic cavities as mechanical bars for gravitational waves,” Phys. Rev. D 108 no. 8, (2023) 084058, arXiv:2303.01518 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2023

  7. [6]

    Novel Search for High-Frequency Gravitational Waves with Low-Mass Axion Haloscopes,

    V. Domcke, C. Garcia-Cely, and N. L. Rodd, “Novel Search for High-Frequency Gravitational Waves with Low-Mass Axion Haloscopes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 no. 4, (2022) 041101, arXiv:2202.00695 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2022

  8. [7]

    Symmetries and selection rules: optimising axion haloscopes for Gravitational Wave searches,

    V. Domcke, C. Garcia-Cely, S. M. Lee, and N. L. Rodd, “Symmetries and selection rules: optimising axion haloscopes for Gravitational Wave searches,” JHEP 03 (2024) 128, arXiv:2306.03125 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

Show all 90 references
  1. [8]

    Magnets are Weber Bar Gravitational Wave Detectors,

    V. Domcke, S. A. R. Ellis, and N. L. Rodd, “Magnets are Weber Bar Gravitational Wave Detectors,” arXiv:2408.01483 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  2. [9]

    High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Search with ABRACADABRA-10 cm,

    K. M. W. Pappas et al. , “High-Frequency Gravitational Wave Search with ABRACADABRA-10 cm,” arXiv:2505.02821 [hep-ex]

    arXiv

  3. [10]

    Classical (and quantum) heuristics for gravitational wave detection,

    R. Tito D’Agnolo and S. A. R. Ellis, “Classical (and quantum) heuristics for gravitational wave detection,” JHEP 04 (2025) 164, arXiv:2412.17897 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  4. [11]

    New Observables for Direct Detection of Axion Dark Matter,

    P. W. Graham and S. Rajendran, “New Observables for Direct Detection of Axion Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. D 88 (2013) 035023, arXiv:1306.6088 [hep-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  5. [12]

    Proposal for a Cosmic Axion Spin Precession Experiment (CASPEr),

    D. Budker, P. W. Graham, M. Ledbetter, S. Rajendran, and A. Sushkov, “Proposal for a Cosmic Axion Spin Precession Experiment (CASPEr),” Phys. Rev. X 4 no. 2, (2014) 021030, arXiv:1306.6089 [hep-ph]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Ultralight dark matter detection with levitated ferromagnets,

    S. Kalia, D. Budker, D. F. J. Kimball, W. Ji, Z. Liu, A. O. Sushkov, C. Timberlake, H. Ulbricht, A. Vinante, and T. Wang, “Ultralight dark matter detection with levitated ferromagnets,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 11, (2024) 115029, arXiv:2408.15330 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

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

    B. Holdom, “Two U(1)’s and Epsilon Charge Shifts,” Phys. Lett. B 166 (1986) 196–198

    1986

  8. [16]

    Radio for hidden-photon dark matter detection,

    S. Chaudhuri, P. W. Graham, K. Irwin, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran, and Y. Zhao, “Radio for hidden-photon dark matter detection,” Phys. Rev. D 92 no. 7, (2015) 075012, arXiv:1411.7382 [hep-ph]. 6

    2015 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Dark photon limits: A handbook,

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

    2021 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Overview of the Cosmic Axion Spin Precession Experiment (CASPEr),

    D. F. Jackson Kimball et al. , “Overview of the Cosmic Axion Spin Precession Experiment (CASPEr),” Springer Proc. Phys. 245 (2020) 105–121, arXiv:1711.08999 [physics.ins-det]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    In Situ Measurements of Dark Photon Dark Matter Using Parker Solar Probe: Going beyond the Radio Window,

    H. An, S. Ge, J. Liu, and M. Liu, “In Situ Measurements of Dark Photon Dark Matter Using Parker Solar Probe: Going beyond the Radio Window,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 134 no. 17, (2025) 171001, arXiv:2405.12285 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Searching for ultralight dark matter conversion in solar corona using Low Frequency Array data,

    H. An, X. Chen, S. Ge, J. Liu, and Y. Luo, “Searching for ultralight dark matter conversion in solar corona using Low Frequency Array data,” Nature Commun. 15 no. 1, (2024) 915, arXiv:2301.03622 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    WISPy Cold Dark Matter,

    P. Arias, D. Cadamuro, M. Goodsell, J. Jaeckel, J. Redondo, and A. Ringwald, “WISPy Cold Dark Matter,” JCAP 06 (2012) 013, arXiv:1201.5902 [hep-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Dark Photon Oscillations in Our Inhomogeneous Universe,

    A. Caputo, H. Liu, S. Mishra-Sharma, and J. T. Ruderman, “Dark Photon Oscillations in Our Inhomogeneous Universe,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 no. 22, (2020) 221303, arXiv:2002.05165 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cosmological evolution of light dark photon dark matter,

    S. D. McDermott and S. J. Witte, “Cosmological evolution of light dark photon dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 6, (2020) 063030, arXiv:1911.05086 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    A Search for Hidden Sector Photons with ADMX,

    ADMX Collaboration, A. Wagner et al. , “A Search for Hidden Sector Photons with ADMX,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 171801, arXiv:1007.3766 [hep-ex]

    2010 arXiv

  17. [25]

    First results from the WISPDMX radio frequency cavity searches for hidden photon dark matter,

    L. H. Nguyen, A. Lobanov, and D. Horns, “First results from the WISPDMX radio frequency cavity searches for hidden photon dark matter,” JCAP 10 (2019) 014, arXiv:1907.12449 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Axion Dark Matter Search around 6.7 µeV,

    S. Lee, S. Ahn, J. Choi, B. R. Ko, and Y. K. Semertzidis, “Axion Dark Matter Search around 6.7 µeV,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 124 no. 10, (2020) 101802, arXiv:2001.05102 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Results from phase 1 of the HAYSTAC microwave cavity axion experiment,

    HA YST ACCollaboration, L. Zhong et al. , “Results from phase 1 of the HAYSTAC microwave cavity axion experiment,” Phys. Rev. D 97 no. 9, (2018) 092001, arXiv:1803.03690 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  20. [28]

    A quantum-enhanced search for dark matter axions,

    HA YST ACCollaboration, K. M. Backes et al. , “A quantum-enhanced search for dark matter axions,” Nature 590 no. 7845, (2021) 238–242, arXiv:2008.01853 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Search for dark photon dark matter: Dark E field radio pilot experiment,

    B. Godfrey et al. , “Search for dark photon dark matter: Dark E field radio pilot experiment,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 1, (2021) 012013, arXiv:2101.02805 [physics.ins-det]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Extensive Search for Axion Dark Matter over 1 GHz with CAPP’S Main Axion Experiment,

    CAPP Collaboration, S. Ahn et al. , “Extensive Search for Axion Dark Matter over 1 GHz with CAPP’S Main Axion Experiment,” Phys. Rev. X 14 no. 3, (2024) 031023, arXiv:2402.12892 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Search for invisible axion dark matter of mass m a = 43 µeV with the QUAX– aγ experiment,

    D. Alesini et al. , “Search for invisible axion dark matter of mass m a = 43 µeV with the QUAX– aγ experiment,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 10, (2021) 102004, arXiv:2012.09498 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  24. [32]

    RADES axion search results with a high-temperature superconducting cavity in an 11.7 T magnet,

    S. Ahyoune et al. , “RADES axion search results with a high-temperature superconducting cavity in an 11.7 T magnet,” JHEP 04 (2025) 113, arXiv:2403.07790 [hep-ex]

    2025

  25. [33]

    Direct search for dark matter axions excluding ALP cogenesis in the 63- to 67- µeV range with the ORGAN experiment,

    A. P. Quiskamp, B. T. McAllister, P. Altin, E. N. Ivanov, M. Goryachev, and M. E. Tobar, “Direct search for dark matter axions excluding ALP cogenesis in the 63- to 67- µeV range with the ORGAN experiment,” Sci. Adv. 8 no. 27, (2022) abq3765, arXiv:2203.12152 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction,

    CAST Collaboration, V. Anastassopoulos et al. , “New CAST Limit on the Axion-Photon Interaction,” Nature Phys. 13 (2017) 584–590, arXiv:1705.02290 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Novel Constraints on Axions Produced in Pulsar Polar-Cap Cascades,

    D. Noordhuis, A. Prabhu, S. J. Witte, A. Y. Chen, F. Cruz, and C. Weniger, “Novel Constraints on Axions Produced in Pulsar Polar-Cap Cascades,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 131 no. 11, (2023) 111004, arXiv:2209.09917 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Upper limit on the axion-photon coupling from magnetic white dwarf polarization,

    C. Dessert, D. Dunsky, and B. R. Safdi, “Upper limit on the axion-photon coupling from magnetic white dwarf polarization,” Phys. Rev. D 105 no. 10, (2022) 103034, arXiv:2203.04319 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Constraints on axionlike particles from a combined analysis of three flaring Fermi flat-spectrum radio quasars,

    J. Davies, M. Meyer, and G. Cotter, “Constraints on axionlike particles from a combined analysis of three flaring Fermi flat-spectrum radio quasars,” Phys. Rev. D 107 no. 8, (2023) 083027, arXiv:2211.03414 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Constraints on axion-like particles with the Perseus Galaxy Cluster with MAGIC,

    MAGIC Collaboration, H. Abe et al. , “Constraints on axion-like particles with the Perseus Galaxy Cluster with MAGIC,” Phys. Dark Univ. 44 (2024) 101425, arXiv:2401.07798 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024

  31. [39]

    Search for Spectral Irregularities due to Photon–Axionlike-Particle Oscillations with the Fermi Large Area Telescope,

    F ermi-LA TCollaboration, M. Ajello et al. , “Search for Spectral Irregularities due to Photon–Axionlike-Particle Oscillations with the Fermi Large Area Telescope,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 no. 16, (2016) 161101, arXiv:1603.06978 [astro-ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Search for Axions in Magnetic White Dwarf Polarization at Lick and Keck Observatories,

    J. N. Benabou, C. Dessert, K. C. Patra, T. G. Brink, W. Zheng, A. V. Filippenko, and B. R. Safdi, “Search for Axions in Magnetic White Dwarf Polarization at Lick and Keck Observatories,” arXiv:2504.12377 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    A Simple Solution to the Strong CP Problem with a Harmless Axion,

    M. Dine, W. Fischler, and M. Srednicki, “A Simple Solution to the Strong CP Problem with a Harmless Axion,” Phys. Lett. B 104 (1981) 199–202

    1981

  34. [42]

    Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance,

    J. E. Kim, “Weak Interaction Singlet and Strong CP Invariance,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979) 103

    1979

  35. [43]

    Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions?,

    M. A. Shifman, A. I. Vainshtein, and V. I. Zakharov, “Can Confinement Ensure Natural CP Invariance of Strong Interactions?,” Nucl. Phys. B 166 (1980) 493–506

    1980

  36. [44]

    Predictions for Axion Couplings from ALP Cogenesis,

    R. T. Co, L. J. Hall, and K. Harigaya, “Predictions for Axion Couplings from ALP Cogenesis,” JHEP 01 (2021) 172, arXiv:2006.04809 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    cajohare/axionlimits: Axionlimits,

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

    2020

  38. [46]

    Experimental targets for dark photon dark matter,

    D. Cyncynates and Z. J. Weiner, “Experimental targets for dark photon dark matter,” arXiv:2410.14774 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Dark photon vortex formation and dynamics,

    W. E. East and J. Huang, “Dark photon vortex formation and dynamics,” JHEP 12 (2022) 089, arXiv:2206.12432 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Fast shimming algorithm based on Bayesian optimization for magnetic resonance based dark matter search,

    J. Walter, H. Bekker, J. Blanchard, D. Budker, N. L. Figueroa, A. Wickenbrock, Y. Zhang, and P. Zhou, “Fast shimming algorithm based on Bayesian optimization for magnetic resonance based dark matter search,” arXiv:2309.11614 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    The cosmic axion spin precession 7 experiment (CASPEr): a dark-matter search with nuclear magnetic resonance,

    A. Garcon et al. , “The cosmic axion spin precession 7 experiment (CASPEr): a dark-matter search with nuclear magnetic resonance,” Quantum Sci. Technol. 3 no. 1, (2017) 014008, arXiv:1707.05312 [physics.ins-det]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Axion Wind Detection with the Homogeneous Precession Domain of Superfluid Helium-3,

    C. Gao, W. Halperin, Y. Kahn, M. Nguyen, J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, and J. W. Scott, “Axion Wind Detection with the Homogeneous Precession Domain of Superfluid Helium-3,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 129 no. 21, (2022) 211801, arXiv:2208.14454 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Statistics and sensitivity of axion wind detection with the homogeneous precession domain of superfluid helium-3,

    J. W. Foster, C. Gao, W. Halperin, Y. Kahn, A. Mande, M. Nguyen, J. Sch¨ utte-Engel, and J. W. Scott, “Statistics and sensitivity of axion wind detection with the homogeneous precession domain of superfluid helium-3,” Phys. Rev. D 110 no. 11, (2024) 115020, arXiv:2310.07791 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Towards an electrostatic storage ring for fundamental physics measurements,

    C. Brandenstein, S. Stelzl, E. Gutsmiedl, W. Schott, A. Weiler, and P. Fierlinger, “Towards an electrostatic storage ring for fundamental physics measurements,” EPJ Web Conf. 282 (2023) 01017, arXiv:2211.08439 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Axion-like Relics: New Constraints from Old Comagnetometer Data,

    I. M. Bloch, Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, and T. Volansky, “Axion-like Relics: New Constraints from Old Comagnetometer Data,” JHEP 01 (2020) 167, arXiv:1907.03767 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Quantum sensitivity limits of nuclear magnetic resonance experiments searching for new fundamental physics,

    D. Aybas, H. Bekker, J. W. Blanchard, D. Budker, G. P. Centers, N. L. Figueroa, A. V. Gramolin, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Wickenbrock, and A. O. Sushkov, “Quantum sensitivity limits of nuclear magnetic resonance experiments searching for new fundamental physics,” Quantum Sci. Techn...

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Frequency-scanning considerations in axionlike dark matter spin-precession experiments,

    Y. Zhang, D. A. Tumturk, H. Bekker, D. Budker, D. F. J. Kimball, A. O. Sushkov, and A. Wickenbrock, “Frequency-scanning considerations in axionlike dark matter spin-precession experiments,” Annalen der Physik 536 no. 1, (2023) 2300223

    2023

  48. [56]

    Proposal for a definitive search for GUT-scale QCD axions,

    DMRadio Collaboration, L. Brouwer et al. , “Proposal for a definitive search for GUT-scale QCD axions,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 11, (2022) 112003, arXiv:2203.11246 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Projected sensitivity of DMRadio-m3: A search for the QCD axion below 1 µeV,

    DMRadio Collaboration, L. Brouwer et al. , “Projected sensitivity of DMRadio-m3: A search for the QCD axion below 1 µeV,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 10, (2022) 103008, arXiv:2204.13781 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Axion Dark Matter Detection by Superconducting Resonant Frequency Conversion,

    A. Berlin, R. T. D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, C. Nantista, J. Neilson, P. Schuster, S. Tantawi, N. Toro, and K. Zhou, “Axion Dark Matter Detection by Superconducting Resonant Frequency Conversion,” JHEP 07 no. 07, (2020) 088, arXiv:1912.11048 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Heterodyne broadband detection of axion dark matter,

    A. Berlin, R. T. D’Agnolo, S. A. R. Ellis, and K. Zhou, “Heterodyne broadband detection of axion dark matter,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 11, (2021) L111701, arXiv:2007.15656 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Searches for New Particles, Dark Matter, and Gravitational Waves with SRF Cavities,

    A. Berlin et al. , “Searches for New Particles, Dark Matter, and Gravitational Waves with SRF Cavities,” arXiv:2203.12714 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    First Results from ABRACADABRA-10 cm: A Search for Sub- µeV Axion Dark Matter,

    J. L. Ouellet et al. , “First Results from ABRACADABRA-10 cm: A Search for Sub- µeV Axion Dark Matter,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 122 no. 12, (2019) 121802, arXiv:1810.12257 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Design and implementation of the ABRACADABRA-10 cm axion dark matter search,

    J. L. Ouellet et al. , “Design and implementation of the ABRACADABRA-10 cm axion dark matter search,” Phys. Rev. D 99 no. 5, (2019) 052012, arXiv:1901.10652 [physics.ins-det]

    2019 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Search for Low-Mass Axion Dark Matter with ABRACADABRA-10 cm,

    C. P. Salemi et al. , “Search for Low-Mass Axion Dark Matter with ABRACADABRA-10 cm,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 no. 8, (2021) 081801, arXiv:2102.06722 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Search for axion-like dark matter with ferromagnets,

    A. V. Gramolin, D. Aybas, D. Johnson, J. Adam, and A. O. Sushkov, “Search for axion-like dark matter with ferromagnets,” Nature Phys. 17 no. 1, (2021) 79–84, arXiv:2003.03348 [hep-ex]

    2021 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Spin squeezing of macroscopic nuclear spin ensembles,

    E. Boyers, G. Goldstein, and A. O. Sushkov, “Spin squeezing of macroscopic nuclear spin ensembles,” Phys. Rev. D 111 no. 5, (2025) 052004, arXiv:2502.14103 [hep-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Revealing the Dark Matter Halo with Axion Direct Detection,

    J. W. Foster, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Safdi, “Revealing the Dark Matter Halo with Axion Direct Detection,” Phys. Rev. D 97 no. 12, (2018) 123006, arXiv:1711.10489 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,

    G. Cowan, K. Cranmer, E. Gross, and O. Vitells, “Asymptotic formulae for likelihood-based tests of new physics,” Eur. Phys. J. C 71 (2011) 1554, arXiv:1007.1727 [physics.data-an]. [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 73, 2501 (2013)]

    2011 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Magnetic shielding and exotic spin-dependent interactions,

    D. F. Jackson Kimball, J. Dudley, Y. Li, S. Thulasi, S. Pustelny, D. Budker, and M. Zolotorev, “Magnetic shielding and exotic spin-dependent interactions,” Phys. Rev. D 94 no. 8, (2016) 082005, arXiv:1606.00696 [physics.ins-det]

    2016 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Searching for dark matter with a 1000 km baseline interferometer,

    D. Gavilan-Martin et al. , “Searching for dark matter with a 1000 km baseline interferometer,” arXiv:2408.02668 [hep-ph]

  62. [70]

    Discovering QCD-coupled axion dark matter with polarization haloscopes,

    A. Berlin and K. Zhou, “Discovering QCD-coupled axion dark matter with polarization haloscopes,” Phys. Rev. D 108 no. 3, (2023) 035038, arXiv:2209.12901 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Forced oscillations in cavity resonators,

    E. U. Condon, “Forced oscillations in cavity resonators,” Journal of Applied Physics 12 no. 2, (1941) 129–132

    1941

  64. [72]

    W. B. Smythe, Static and dynamic electricity . New York, NY (USA); Hemisphere Publishing, 1988

    1988

  65. [73]

    R. E. Collin, Field theory of guided waves . IEEE Press Series on Electromagnetic Wave Theory. John Wiley & Sons, Nashville, TN, 2 ed., 1990

    1990

  66. [74]

    Dark Matter Interferometry,

    J. W. Foster, Y. Kahn, R. Nguyen, N. L. Rodd, and B. R. Safdi, “Dark Matter Interferometry,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 7, (2021) 076018, arXiv:2009.14201 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  67. [75]

    Abragam, The principles of nuclear magnetism

    A. Abragam, The principles of nuclear magnetism . International Series of Monographs on Physics. Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1983

    1983

  68. [76]

    N. G. Van Kampen, Stochastic Processes in Physics and Chemistry. Elsevier, 2007

    2007

  69. [77]

    Kowalewski and L

    J. Kowalewski and L. Maler, Nuclear spin relaxation in liquids. CRC Press, London, England, 2 ed., 2019

    2019

  70. [78]

    M. H. Levitt, Spin dynamics . Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, 2 ed., 2008

    2008

  71. [79]

    Redfield, The Theory of Relaxation Processes

    A. Redfield, The Theory of Relaxation Processes . Elsevier, 1965

    1965

  72. [80]

    C. P. Slichter, Principles of Magnetic Resonance . Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1990

    1990

  73. [81]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics. Wiley, 1998

    1998

  74. [82]

    Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics

    C. Kittel, Introduction to Solid State Physics . Wiley, 8 ed., 2004

    2004

  75. [83]

    Chapter 2 - instrumental considerations,

    J. H. Simpson, “Chapter 2 - instrumental considerations,” in Organic Structure Determination Using 2-D NMR Spectroscopy (Second Edition) , pp. 21–57. Academic Press, Boston, second edition ed., 8 2012

    2012

  76. [84]

    Relaxation effects in nuclear magnetic resonance absorption,

    N. Bloembergen, E. M. Purcell, and R. V. Pound, “Relaxation effects in nuclear magnetic resonance absorption,” Phys. Rev. 73 no. 7, (1948) 679

    1948

  77. [85]

    Relaxation processes in a system of two spins,

    I. Solomon, “Relaxation processes in a system of two spins,” Phys. Rev. 99 no. 2, (1955) 559

    1955

  78. [86]

    Relaxation. can t2, be longer than t1?

    D. D. Traficante, “Relaxation. can t2, be longer than t1?” Concepts in Magnetic Resonance 3 no. 3, 171–177

  79. [87]

    Radiation damping in magnetic resonance experiments,

    N. Bloembergen and R. V. Pound, “Radiation damping in magnetic resonance experiments,” Phys. Rev. 95 (1954) 8–12

    1954

  80. [88]

    Irreversibility and generalized noise,

    H. B. Callen and T. A. Welton, “Irreversibility and generalized noise,” Phys. Rev. 83 (1951) 34–40

    1951

  81. [89]

    The fluctuation-dissipation theorem,

    R. Kubo, “The fluctuation-dissipation theorem,” Reports on Progress in Physics 29 no. 1, (1966) 255

    1966

  82. [90]

    Chapter xii - fluctuations,

    L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, “Chapter xii - fluctuations,” in Statistical Physics (Third Edition) , vol. 5 of Course of Theoretical Physics , pp. 333–400. Pergamon, 1980. 9 Dark Matter Nuclear Magnetic Resonance is Sensitive to Dark Photons and the Axion-Photon Coupling Su...

    1980

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.