Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 74 references

Probing Light Particles With Optically Trapped Sensors Through Nucleon Scattering

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-09 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that optically levitated SiO2 nanospheres, read out near the standard quantum limit, can act as low-threshold nuclear-recoil detectors, claiming a single 15-nanometer sphere could probe pseudoscalar and vector dark…

desk verdict The ALP and pseudoscalar-DM projections rest on an invalid spin-independent structure factor; the vector and Earth-bound channels may still be sound. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.00093 v1 pith:IBVAB5DV submitted 2025-01-31 hep-ph hep-ex

Bhaskar Dutta , Dilip Kumar Ghosh , Sk Jeesun This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phhep-ex
keywords levitatednanospheresaxion-likeparticlespseudoscalardarkmattervectorEarth-boundnuclearrecoildetectionstandardquantumlimitstructurefactor
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

The paper tries to establish that optically levitated nanospheres can detect exotic light particles through the tiny nuclear recoils they produce, using only the motion of the sphere's center of mass. It argues that the existing 200-nanometer SiO2 spheres, already operated in a 4x4 array, can probe solar axion-like particles (the 14.4 keV line from iron-57) and pseudoscalar dark matter around 10 keV, reaching couplings around $10^{-5}$, a region current experiments have not excluded. It further claims that a smaller 15-nanometer sphere, because the whole sphere recoils coherently at momenta below about 0.1 keV, can reach sub-keV pseudoscalar and vector dark matter with a single sphere, and can directly detect Earth-bound strongly interacting dark matter. If true, this would give tabletop experiments access to dark matter masses and couplings that are invisible to conventional kilo-tonne detectors.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the structure factor $S(q)=\sum_i N_i Z_i^2 F_H^2(q r_{Ai}) + N_p^2 F_c^2(q)$, with $F_c(q)=3 j_1(r_{\rm sp}q)/(r_{\rm sp}q)$. It describes how the nanosphere responds to a momentum transfer $q$: at large $q$, individual nuclei scatter coherently and the Helm form factor $F_H$ suppresses high-$q$ response; at small $q$, the whole sphere is the scattering object and the second term gives an $N_p^2$ coherence enhancement. The other mechanism is the SQL momentum uncertainty $\sigma_{\rm SQL}=\sqrt{m_{\rm sp}\omega}$, which sets the slowest detectable recoil and therefore the low-mass cutoff for each sphere size.

What would settle it

Run a single 15 nm sphere with threshold $q_{\rm th}=1\sigma_{\rm SQL}$ for one year in a low-background environment; if the resulting null limit on pseudoscalar dark matter does not reach $g_{p\chi_s}=10^{-6}$ at $m_{\chi_s}=85$ eV, the central sensitivity claim would be ruled out. Equivalently, compute the full spin-dependent nuclear matrix element for the SiO2 isotopes, such as 29Si, and check whether the rate retains the $N_p^2$ scaling used in the paper.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the momentum threshold of an optically trapped nanosphere, set by the standard quantum limit $\sigma_{\rm SQL}=\sqrt{m_{\rm sp}\omega}$, together with the target's structure factor $S(q)$, determines which dark-matter or ALP parameter space the detector can reach. For a 200 nm sphere the threshold is about 18 keV, so nuclear scattering with individual nuclei is sensitive to masses around 10 keV; a 4x4 array can already exceed the SNO and SN1987A-count bounds and probe $g_{ap}\sim 3\times10^{-5}$. For a 15 nm sphere the threshold is about 85 eV, and when the transferred momentum is below $2\pi/r_{\rm sp}$ the entire sphere recoils coherently, so the event rate scales as the square of the number of nucleons; a single such sphere can then reach pseudoscalar dark matter with $m\sim 85$ eV and $g_{p\chi_s}\sim 10^{-6}$ and vector dark matter with $g_{p\chi_V}\sim 10^{-10}$, and the same coherence gives sensitivity to Earth-bound dark matter with fractional abundance $10^{-10}$ and cross-sections near $10^{-23}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$.

Load-bearing premise

The entire rate calculation for pseudoscalar ALPs and pseudoscalar dark matter assumes that the nuclear response is a coherent sum over protons squared, $Z^2$ or $N_p^2$, when in reality the axial coupling is spin-dependent and may not receive this coherent enhancement.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A 4x4 array of 200 nm spheres, a configuration already demonstrated, would start excluding solar-ALP nucleon couplings near $3\times10^{-5}$ for masses below about 10 keV, an unconstrained region.
  • A single 15 nm sphere could probe pseudoscalar dark matter at masses down to ~85 eV and couplings down to ~$10^{-6}$; a 10x10 array of such spheres would go beyond SNO and SN1987A-count exclusion.
  • Sub-keV vector dark matter with nucleon coupling $g_{p\chi_V}\sim 10^{-10}$ at masses near 85 eV could be reached, providing a direct nuclear-scattering constraint where only loop-induced electron-recoil and astrophysical bounds exist.
  • Earth-bound strongly interacting dark matter with $f_\chi=10^{-10}$ and $\sigma_{\chi n}\sim 10^{-23}\,\mathrm{cm}^2$ would become detectable in a 15 nm sphere within a year, stronger than Lyman-alpha and Dewar-heating limits.
  • Scaling to 100x100 or 1000x1000 arrays would push couplings toward $10^{-6}$ (pseudoscalar) and $10^{-10}$ (vector) even at sub-keV masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same small-sphere coherence argument could be applied to other monoenergetic solar nuclear lines, such as the 478 keV line from lithium-7, extending the mass reach beyond 85 eV at the cost of a higher effective threshold.
  • If sub-SQL momentum readouts become available, the 15 nm sphere's threshold would drop below 85 eV, pushing the pseudoscalar and vector dark matter reach below 50 eV and possibly probing the QCD-axion band at low mass.
  • An intermediate sphere, roughly 100 nm in diameter, would naturally fill the $q\sim 1$ keV gap between the large- and small-sphere regimes, as the paper itself notes; a graded array could map the recoil spectrum continuously from 0.1 to 100 keV.
  • For Earth-bound dark matter, the density profile peaks toward Earth's core, so a levitated sensor placed far from the surface would sample a different column density and could distinguish the capture model used here from the surface benchmark.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes using optically levitated SiO2 nanospheres as nuclear-recoil detectors for light exotic particles: solar ALPs via the 14.4 keV 57Fe line, sub-GeV pseudoscalar and vector dark matter, and Earth-bound strongly interacting dark matter. It presents projected 90% C.L. sensitivities for arrays of 200 nm and 15 nm spheres under SQL-level momentum thresholds, claiming access to previously unconstrained parameter space. The analysis uses a structure factor S(q) with spin-independent coherence terms and computes rates for each scenario, with a dedicated appendix for the ALP-nucleon scattering amplitude and an Earth-bound DM density profile.

Significance. If the projections were correct, this would be a valuable proposal: optically levitated nanospheres with SQL-limited momentum thresholds could probe nucleon couplings in mass ranges inaccessible to conventional direct detection, and the Earth-bound DM analysis adds a novel detection channel. The paper includes concrete experimental parameters, array configurations, and a detailed appendix with the differential cross section, and it makes quantitative predictions that are falsifiable by future tabletop experiments. However, the central claims for ALP and pseudoscalar DM rest on a structure factor that is inappropriate for the assumed axial-vector interactions, which undermines the headline sensitivities.

major comments (3)
  1. [Scattering rate; Sections I.B and II.A] The structure factor S(q) = sum_i N_i Z_i^2 F_H^2(q r_Ai) + N_p^2 F_c^2(q), defined in the 'Scattering rate' section and used in Eq. (1) and in the rate formulas for pseudoscalar DM in Sections I.B and II.A, is a spin-independent, coherent response. For the ALP and pseudoscalar-DM Lagrangians considered, which contain gamma5 (axial-vector) couplings, the nonrelativistic nuclear matrix element is spin-dependent. The dominant isotopes in SiO2, 28Si and 16O, are spin-0, so the elastic axial-vector matrix element vanishes, and low-lying inelastic channels are kinematically closed for the keV-scale recoils considered. Consequently, the projected limits in Figs. 1-3, including the stated single-sphere sensitivity to g_p_chi_s ~ 1e-6 at m ~ 85 eV, are built on rates overestimated by orders of magnitude. The analysis must be redone with a proper spin-dependent structure factor, which will not scale as Z^2 or N_p^2 and will not receive the N_p^2 whole-sphere coherence enhancement.
  2. [Section I.A] The 14.4 keV solar ALP flux from 57Fe de-excitation is itself proportional to the same nucleon coupling (e.g., g_ap^2) that the scattering rate is designed to probe. The projected limit in Fig. 1 therefore depends on both the production and detection vertices, scaling as g^4, and the claim of constraining 'individual nucleon coupling' should be qualified. The analysis should state explicitly that the flux is computed at a reference coupling or as a function of the coupling, and that the limit is on the product of production and detection matrix elements; otherwise the 'model-independent' framing in the text is misleading.
  3. [Section II.C and Appendix B] The Earth-bound DM rate calculation appears to use the same coherent structure factor for fermionic DM scattering. If the interaction is assumed to be spin-independent, the use of S(q) is reasonable, but this should be stated explicitly. The paper defines the effective Lagrangian for pseudoscalar and vector DM but does not give the corresponding Lagrangian for the fermionic DM-nucleon interaction, so the spin structure of that channel is unspecified. Please clarify whether the fermionic DM coupling is assumed to be scalar/vector, and if so, confirm that the coherent structure factor applies to that case.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] The notation for couplings is inconsistent: the text uses g_ap, gap, g_p_chi_s, and gp_chi_s interchangeably. Rename all couplings with a uniform subscript convention for clarity.
  2. [Section I.A] The sentence 'One such process that causes nuclear recoil is a(k1) + N (k2) -> gamma(k3) + N (k4)' is incomplete: it should specify the target nucleon and the final state photon, and the amplitude derivation in Appendix A should be checked for sign errors in the M_2^2 and M_3^2 terms.
  3. [Figure captions] The captions of Figs. 2-5 do not state the integration time for the 4x4 and 10x10 arrays in Fig. 2 (the text says 10 years, but the caption lists only threshold), nor do they list the q_th values for all lines. Add these details to the captions for reproducibility.
  4. [Section II.C] The choice f_chi = 1e-10 is stated as a benchmark, but no motivation or sensitivity to varying f_chi is provided. At least a brief comment on how the limits scale with f_chi would help the reader assess the robustness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the sensitivity projections are computed directly from externally cited fluxes, cross sections, and structure factors, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is input-driven rather than self-referential. Equation (1) builds the solar-ALP recoil rate from the 14.4 keV 57Fe flux taken from refs. [36,47], a photoproduction-like ALP-nucleon cross section from refs. [48-50], and the levitated-sphere structure factor S(q) from ref. [24] (Afek, Carney, Moore), none of which are authored by the present authors. The sub-MeV pseudoscalar and vector DM rates use the halo density rho_DM = 0.3 GeV/cm^3 and absorption cross sections from refs. [63,64] (pseudo-scalar) and standard vector-DM scattering, with quoted thresholds q_th = sigma_SQL or 0.5 sigma_SQL set as experimental benchmarks, not fit to data. The Earth-bound DM rate is built from a gravitational-capture model (Appendix B) with externally specified f_chi = 1e-10 and f_c = 0.1, again benchmark assumptions. No equation in the paper defines the predicted coupling limits in terms of themselves, and no fitted parameter is later relabeled as a sensitivity. The few self-citations (refs. [19,42] include coauthor Dutta) appear in the literature survey and astrophysical-constraint context only; they are not load-bearing for the projected exclusions. The spin-independent vs. spin-dependent structure-factor concern for pseudoscalar interactions is a physics-validity criticism of an adopted external formula, not a circularity: the limits would follow from the paper's stated (possibly incorrect) assumptions, rather than reducing to those assumptions by construction. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks and receives a circularity score of 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis rests on standard scattering formalism plus several benchmark choices (q_th, f_c, f_chi, array size). The central physics assumption is that the spin-independent coherent structure factor applies to pseudoscalar interactions, which is likely incorrect and strongly affects the ALP and pseudoscalar-DM projections. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • q_th (momentum detection threshold) = 0.5 sigma_SQL or 1 sigma_SQL depending on projection; e.g., 9 keV for the 200 nm sphere and 43 eV for the 15 nm sphere
    Detection threshold assumed for the recoil measurement; sub-SQL thresholds (0.5 sigma_SQL) are proposed based on refs [28-32] but are not demonstrated in levitated-sphere experiments; the low-mass cutoffs in all figures are set by this parameter.
  • f_c (capture fraction for Earth-bound DM) = 0.1
    Taken from ref [9] as a conservative constant for M_chi > 1 GeV and sigma > 1e-32 cm^2; it sets the overall normalization of the Earth-bound DM density and is not derived in this paper.
  • f_chi (fractional abundance of strongly interacting DM) = 1e-10 (benchmark)
    Chosen benchmark; all Earth-bound DM sensitivity lines scale directly with f_chi, and no constraint on f_chi is derived from data in this paper.
  • array size and integration time = single sphere to 1000 x 1000 (1 to 1e6 spheres); 1 to 10 years
    Experimental parameters; sensitivity scales as sqrt(N_array * T), and the optimistic configurations (100x100, 1000x1000) are not yet realized.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Structure factor S(q) with Helm form factor and sphere-coherent form factor from ref [24] applies to all considered couplings
    S(q) includes sum N_i Z_i^2 F_H^2 and N_p^2 F_c^2, valid for spin-independent coherent scattering. For the pseudoscalar ALP and pseudoscalar DM interactions considered in Sections I.A and II.A, the operator is spin-dependent and the coherence assumption is not generally valid.
  • domain assumption Solar ALP flux from 57Fe de-excitation is taken from refs [36,47] with standard normalization
    The rate in Eq.(1) multiplies this flux by the a + p -> gamma + p cross section; the flux itself depends on the isoscalar/isovector ALP-nucleon couplings, so the resulting bound on gap alone assumes a specific relation between those couplings.
  • domain assumption Earth-bound DM capture, thermalization, and density profile follow refs [8,9] with f_c = 0.1 and a thermal equilibrium approximation
    The density and velocity distribution of captured DM are computed assuming the benchmark capture model; the resulting recoil rate depends on these astrophysical assumptions.
  • domain assumption Background rate is negligible (< 1 event) at the chosen thresholds
    The projected 90% C.L. limits assume zero background; the paper argues neutrino and residual-gas backgrounds can be suppressed but does not provide a full background budget.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Light Particles With Optically Trapped Sensors Through Nucleon Scattering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IBVAB5DV

@misc{pith2026250200093,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Light Particles With Optically Trapped Sensors Through Nucleon Scattering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IBVAB5DV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.00093}
}
abstract

Optically levitated nanospheres are highly sensitive to the motion of their center of mass even under small momentum transfer. We propose detecting exotic particles via nucleon scattering in such spheres in the context of an ongoing experiment. The 200 nm-diameter spheres within the present experimental realization, featuring a configuration of the array $4\times 4$ and its upgrade, can achieve sensitivity to nuclear couplings of ALPs exclusively and pseudoscalar dark matter in the $\sim 10$ keV mass range, targeting previously unconstrained regions of parameter space. In contrast, a smaller sphere with a diameter of 15 nm benefits from overall coherence enhancement, enabling the detection of pseudoscalar and vector dark matter down to $\mathcal{O}(100)$ eV even with a single sphere. This smaller setup also offers the potential for the direct detection of Earth-bound dark matter strongly coupled with visible matter, even with its minimal velocity and tiny fractional abundance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.00093 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Projected sensitivity at 90% C.L on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Projected sensitivity at 90% C.L on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Projected sensitivity at 90% C.L on the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Feyman diagram of ALP proton scattering [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Variation of number density of captured DM parti [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Expected recoil rate in a single 15 nm diameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cirelli, A

    M. Cirelli, A. Strumia, and J. Zupan, (2024), arXiv:2406.01705 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    R. D. Peccei and H. R. Quinn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 38, 1440 (1977)

    1977

  3. [3]

    Weinberg, Phys

    S. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 223 (1978)

    1978

  4. [4]

    Wilczek, Phys

    F. Wilczek, Phys. Rev. Lett. 40, 279 (1978)

    1978

  5. [5]

    J. E. Kim and G. Carosi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 557 (2010), [Erratum: Rev.Mod.Phys. 91, 049902 (2019)], arXiv:0807.3125 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2010

  6. [6]

    Caputo and G

    A. Caputo and G. Raffelt, in 1st Training School of the COST Action COSMIC WISPers (CA21106)(2024) arXiv:2401.13728 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2024

  7. [7]

    Zaharijas and G

    G. Zaharijas and G. R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. D 72, 083502 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0406531

    arXiv 2005

  8. [8]

    D. A. Neufeld, G. R. Farrar, and C. F. McKee, As- trophys. J. 866, 111 (2018), arXiv:1805.08794 [astro- ph.CO]

    arXiv 2018

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Bramante, J

    J. Bramante, J. Kumar, G. Mohlabeng, N. Raj, and N. Song, Phys. Rev. D 108, 063022 (2023), arXiv:2210.01812 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    McKeen, D

    D. McKeen, D. E. Morrissey, M. Pospelov, H. Ra- mani, and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 011005 (2023), arXiv:2303.03416 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Essig, M

    R. Essig, M. Fernandez-Serra, J. Mardon, A. Soto, T. Volansky, and T.-T. Yu, JHEP 05, 046 (2016), arXiv:1509.01598 [hep-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Hochberg, Y

    Y. Hochberg, Y. Kahn, M. Lisanti, K. M. Zurek, A. G. Grushin, R. Ilan, S. M. Griffin, Z.-F. Liu, S. F. We- ber, and J. B. Neaton, Phys. Rev. D 97, 015004 (2018), arXiv:1708.08929 [hep-ph]

    2018 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), (2024), arXiv:2411.15289 [hep-ex]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Arnquist et al

    I. Arnquist et al. (DAMIC-M), Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 171003 (2023), arXiv:2302.02372 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    I. M. Bloch et al. (SENSEI), (2024), arXiv:2410.18716 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024

  8. [16]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041003 (2023), arXiv:2303.14729 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Aalbers et al

    J. Aalbers et al. (LZ), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041002 (2023), arXiv:2207.03764 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Huang et al.(PandaX), Phys

    D. Huang et al.(PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 191002 (2023), arXiv:2308.01540 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dutta, W.-C

    B. Dutta, W.-C. Huang, D. Kim, J. L. Newstead, J.-C. Park, and I. S. Ali, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 161801 (2024), arXiv:2402.04184 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    C. J. Riedel, Phys. Rev. D 88, 116005 (2013), arXiv:1212.3061 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Monteiro, G

    F. Monteiro, G. Afek, D. Carney, G. Krnjaic, J. Wang, and D. C. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 181102 (2020), arXiv:2007.12067 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    D. C. Moore and A. A. Geraci, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 014008 (2021), arXiv:2008.13197 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Carney, K

    D. Carney, K. G. Leach, and D. C. Moore, PRX Quan- tum 4, 010315 (2023), arXiv:2207.05883 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    G. Afek, D. Carney, and D. C. Moore, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 101301 (2022), arXiv:2111.03597 [physics.ins-det]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. Yan, X. Yu, Z. V. Han, T. Li, and J. Zhang, Photon. Res. 11, 600 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981)

    1981

  19. [27]

    Aprile et al

    E. Aprile et al. (XENON), Phys. Rev. D 102, 072004 (2020), arXiv:2006.09721 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Gross, T

    C. Gross, T. Zibold, E. Nicklas, J. Est` eve, and M. K. Oberthaler, Nature 464, 1165 (2010)

    2010

  21. [29]

    Hosten, N

    O. Hosten, N. J. Engelsen, R. Krishnakumar, and M. A. Kasevich, Nature 529, 505 (2016)

    2016

  22. [30]

    Rossi, D

    M. Rossi, D. Mason, J. Chen, Y. Tsaturyan, and A. Schliesser, Nature 563, 53 (2018)

    2018

  23. [31]

    McCuller et al., Phys

    L. McCuller et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 171102 (2020), arXiv:2003.13443 [astro-ph.IM]

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Kilian et al., A VS Quantum Sci

    E. Kilian et al., A VS Quantum Sci. 6, 030503 (2024), arXiv:2401.17990 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Zhang, G

    J. Zhang, G. Pagano, P. W. Hess, A. Kyprianidis, P. Becker, H. Kaplan, A. V. Gorshkov, Z. X. Gong, and C. Monroe, Nature 551, 601 (2017), arXiv:1708.01044 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    K. A. Gilmore, M. Affolter, R. J. Lewis-Swan, D. Barber- ena, E. Jordan, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Science 373, 673 (2021), arXiv:2103.08690 [quant-ph]. 7

    2021 arXiv

  27. [35]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres (2024) arXiv:2403.12021 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  28. [36]

    We will demonstrate that the levi- tated nanosphere setup offers a powerful tool to explore 1 Private communication with David Moore

    and pseudo-scalar and vector DM utilizing galac- tic halo DM flux. We will demonstrate that the levi- tated nanosphere setup offers a powerful tool to explore 1 Private communication with David Moore. arXiv:2502.00093v1 [hep-ph] 31 Jan 2025 2 a substantial portion of previousl...

    2025 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Alessandria et al

    F. Alessandria et al. (CUORE), JCAP 05, 007 (2013), arXiv:1209.2800 [hep-ex]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Y. Ema, M. Pospelov, and A. Ray, JHEP 07, 094 (2024), arXiv:2402.03431 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Pospelov, S

    M. Pospelov, S. Rajendran, and H. Ramani, Phys. Rev. D 101, 055001 (2020), arXiv:1907.00011 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    J. D. Lewin and P. F. Smith, Astropart. Phys. 6, 87 (1996)

    1996

  33. [41]

    Anastassopoulos et al.(CAST), Nature Phys

    V. Anastassopoulos et al.(CAST), Nature Phys. 13, 584 (2017), arXiv:1705.02290 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Lucente, N

    G. Lucente, N. Nath, F. Capozzi, M. Giannotti, and A. Mirizzi, Phys. Rev. D 106, 123007 (2022), arXiv:2209.11780 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Capozzi, B

    F. Capozzi, B. Dutta, G. Gurung, W. Jang, I. M. Shoe- maker, A. Thompson, and J. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 108, 075019 (2023), arXiv:2307.03878 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Bhusal, N

    A. Bhusal, N. Houston, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 091601 (2021), arXiv:2004.02733 [hep-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    A. V. Derbin, A. S. Kayunov, V. N. Muratova, D. A. Semenov, and E. V. Unzhakov, Phys. Rev. D 83, 023505 (2011), arXiv:1101.2290 [hep-ex]

    2011 arXiv

  38. [46]

    van Bibber, P

    K. van Bibber, P. M. McIntyre, D. E. Morris, and G. G. Raffelt, Phys. Rev. D 39, 2089 (1989)

    1989

  39. [47]

    Fu et al

    C. Fu et al. (PandaX), Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 181806 (2017), arXiv:1707.07921 [hep-ex]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Andriamonje et al

    S. Andriamonje et al. (CAST), JCAP 12, 002 (2009), arXiv:0906.4488 [hep-ex]

    2009 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Guo and Z.-W

    D. Guo and Z.-W. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 105, 114039 (2022), arXiv:2201.11555 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [50]

    F. T. Avignone, C. Baktash, W. C. Barker, F. P. Calaprice, R. W. Dunford, W. C. Haxton, D. Kahana, R. T. Kouzes, H. S. Miley, and D. M. Moltz, Phys. Rev. D 37, 618 (1988)

    1988

  43. [51]

    J. D. Vergados, P. C. Divari, and H. Ejiri, Adv. High Energy Phys. 2022, 7373365 (2022), arXiv:2104.12213 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Lella, P

    A. Lella, P. Carenza, G. Co’, G. Lucente, M. Giannotti, A. Mirizzi, and T. Rauscher, Phys. Rev. D 109, 023001 (2024), arXiv:2306.01048 [hep-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Carenza, T

    P. Carenza, T. Fischer, M. Giannotti, G. Guo, G. Mart ´ ınez-Pinedo, and A. Mirizzi, JCAP 10, 016 (2019), [Erratum: JCAP 05, E01 (2020)], arXiv:1906.11844 [hep-ph]

    2019 arXiv

  46. [54]

    N. Bar, K. Blum, and G. D’Amico, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123025 (2020), arXiv:1907.05020 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Wu et al., Phys

    T. Wu et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 191302 (2019), arXiv:1901.10843 [hep-ex]

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    I. M. Bloch, R. Shaham, Y. Hochberg, E. Kuflik, T. Volansky, and O. Katz (NASDUCK), Nature Com- mun. 14, 5784 (2023), arXiv:2209.13588 [hep-ph]

    2023

  49. [57]

    Bellini et al

    G. Bellini et al. (Borexino), Phys. Rev. D 85, 092003 (2012), arXiv:1203.6258 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Armengaud et al

    E. Armengaud et al. , JCAP 11, 067 (2013), arXiv:1307.1488 [astro-ph.CO]

    2013 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Angloher et al

    G. Angloher et al. (CRESST), Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 637 (2017), arXiv:1707.06749 [astro-ph.CO]

    2017 arXiv

  52. [60]

    L. F. Abbott and P. Sikivie, Phys. Lett. B 120, 133 (1983)

    1983

  53. [61]

    Dine and W

    M. Dine and W. Fischler, Phys. Lett. B 120, 137 (1983)

    1983

  54. [62]

    Aralis et al.(SuperCDMS), Phys

    T. Aralis et al.(SuperCDMS), Phys. Rev. D 101, 052008 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 103, 039901 (2021)], arXiv:1911.11905 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Armengaud et al

    E. Armengaud et al. (EDEL WEISS), Phys. Rev. D 98, 082004 (2018), arXiv:1808.02340 [hep-ex]

    2018 arXiv

  56. [64]

    J. A. Dror, G. Elor, and R. Mcgehee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 18 (2020), arXiv:1905.12635 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    J. A. Dror, G. Elor, and R. Mcgehee, JHEP 02, 134 (2020), arXiv:1908.10861 [hep-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  58. [66]

    H. An, M. Pospelov, J. Pradler, and A. Ritz, Phys. Lett. B 747, 331 (2015), arXiv:1412.8378 [hep-ph]

    2015 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Hambye, JHEP 01, 028 (2009), arXiv:0811.0172 [hep- ph]

    T. Hambye, JHEP 01, 028 (2009), arXiv:0811.0172 [hep- ph]

    2009 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Hardy and R

    E. Hardy and R. Lasenby, JHEP 02, 033 (2017), arXiv:1611.05852 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  61. [69]

    J. H. Chang, R. Essig, and S. D. McDermott, JHEP 01, 107 (2017), arXiv:1611.03864 [hep-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  62. [70]

    R. K. Leane and J. Smirnov, JCAP 10, 057 (2023), arXiv:2209.09834 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  63. [71]

    M. A. Buen-Abad, R. Essig, D. McKeen, and Y.- M. Zhong, Phys. Rept. 961, 1 (2022), arXiv:2107.12377 [astro-ph.CO]

    2022 arXiv

  64. [72]

    D. A. Neufeld and D. J. Brach-Neufeld, Astrophys. J. 877, 8 (2019), arXiv:1904.01590 [astro-ph.CO]

    2019 arXiv

  65. [73]

    McKeen, M

    D. McKeen, M. Moore, D. E. Morrissey, M. Pospelov, and H. Ramani, Phys. Rev. D 106, 035011 (2022), arXiv:2202.08840 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  66. [74]

    A. M. Dziewonski and D. L. Anderson, Phys. Earth Planet. Interiors 25, 297 (1981). 8 A. ALP nucleon scattering a p p γ a p p γ FIG. 6. Feyman diagram of ALP proton scattering ALP can interact with protons (neutrons) by the pro- cess as described in Fig.6 and the amplitude of t...

    1981

Pith tools

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