Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 51 references

A stationary Mössbauer resonance in silver-109 could detect ultralight dark matter, reaching couplings near 10^-18 GeV^-1 for the photon channel.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 06:28 UTC pith:OEZ76F54

load-bearing objection Useful isotope-by-isotope projections for Mössbauer ULDM searches, but the headline 109Ag limits rest on an unjustified static treatment of an oscillating signal and an assumed linewidth. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.18960 v2 pith:OEZ76F54 submitted 2025-12-22 hep-ph

Searching for Ultralight Dark Matter with M{\"o}ssbauer Resonance

Peng-Long Zhang , Yu-Ming Yang , Xiao-Jun Bi , Qin Chang , Yu Gao , Hai-Bo Li , Wei Xu , Peng-Fei Yin This is my paper
classification hep-ph PACS 95.35.+d76.80.+y
keywords ultralight dark matterMössbauer spectroscopyscalar dark matternuclear energy shiftsilver-109gravitational redshiftdark-matter couplingsequivalence principle
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper argues that a fixed, motionless Mössbauer spectrometer can turn an oscillating ultralight scalar dark-matter field into a measurable vertical shift of its resonance absorption peak. Because Earth's gravity shifts gamma-ray energies with height, the position of maximum absorption acts as a readout of dark-matter-induced nuclear energy changes. For the 88 keV transition in silver-109, whose fractional linewidth is about 10^-22, the projected 95% confidence sensitivities reach 10^-18 GeV^-1 for the dark-matter–photon coupling, 10^-21 GeV^-1 for the gluon coupling, and about 10^-22 GeV^-1 for the quark Yukawa coupling, over a dark-matter mass range of 10^-15 to 10^-8 eV. These projections exceed several existing search sensitivities and approach the strongest equivalence-principle limits. The same scheme is applied to scandium-45 and zinc-67, which give weaker but still competitive reaches.

Core claim

The central claim is that an oscillating ultralight scalar dark-matter field modifies nuclear transition energies slightly, and in a stationary Mössbauer setup this energy shift appears as a vertical displacement δZ₀ = g⁻¹ ΔE/E₀ of the resonance absorption peak. Simulating a 0.1 Ci silver-109 source with a 1 m baseline, a 10 μm spatial-resolution detector, and one dark-matter coherence time of data (10^6 oscillation periods), the authors find the peak position can be located with enough statistical precision to constrain the scalar–photon coupling to f_γ⁻¹ ~ 10^-18 GeV⁻¹, the gluon coupling to f_g⁻¹ ~ 10^-21 GeV⁻¹, and the quark Yukawa coupling to ~10^-22 GeV⁻¹ at 95% confidence. The key is

What carries the argument

A stationary Mössbauer spectrometer with a gravitational vertical-position readout. The emitter rests at a fixed height; the absorber and detector are arranged around it, and Earth's gravitational redshift maps photon energy to vertical position. A dark-matter-induced change in nuclear transition energy shifts the resonance peak vertically by δZ₀ = g⁻¹ ΔE/E₀. The exceptional fractional linewidth of silver-109 (natural Γ₀/E₀ ~ 10^-22, with an experimentally assumed width of 1.9×10^-16 eV) makes the absorption peak extremely narrow in spatial position, so a detector with 10 μm resolution and photon counting in 10 μm bins can locate the peak to high statistical precision over the dark-matter co

Load-bearing premise

The projected reach relies on treating the dark-matter-driven energy shift, which oscillates at the dark-matter Compton frequency, as a static vertical displacement summed over 10^6 periods; the paper does not specify a phase-coherent, time-binned analysis of a sinusoidally moving peak, so the statistical enhancement could be optimistic.

What would settle it

Simulate the full Mössbauer transmission function with a sinusoidally oscillating resonance peak at frequency m_φ/2π and compare the fitted peak-position uncertainty with the static-displacement estimate; if the uncertainty scales as 1/√(number of periods) rather than benefiting from coherent summation, the projected f_γ⁻¹ sensitivity weakens substantially. Also, a direct measurement of the silver-109 Mössbauer linewidth in a real source: if the experimental width exceeds the assumed 1.9×10^-16 eV, the strongest constraints degrade roughly linearly.

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

If this is right

  • A stationary Mössbauer experiment using silver-109 could probe scalar dark-matter–photon couplings down to ~10^-18 GeV⁻¹, exceeding the sensitivity of several existing optical-cavity and interferometric searches.
  • The same setup reaches ~10^-21 GeV⁻¹ for gluon couplings and ~10^-22 GeV⁻¹ for quark Yukawa couplings, channels where few laboratory limits exist.
  • Because the signal appears as a spatial position, extending the baseline from 1 m to 10–100 m improves the energy shift linearly in the long-wavelength limit, with photon-statistics losses that can be offset by higher source activity.
  • For scandium-45, synchrotron-based resonant excitation bypasses the short-lived radioactive parent and could improve with next-generation high-brightness X-ray sources, while zinc-67 offers competitive sensitivity with a 50 m baseline.
  • The accessible dark-matter mass range 10^-15 to 10^-8 eV corresponds to oscillation frequencies from sub-hertz to megahertz, overlapping with signals searched for in gravitational-wave detectors and atomic-clock networks.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the static-displacement treatment of the oscillating signal is replaced by a proper time-binned likelihood for a sinusoidally moving peak, the projected reach may change; a phase-coherent demodulation scheme could recover most of the claimed enhancement, but the current estimate likely overstates the single-coherence-time statistics.
  • The same gravitational-position readout could be applied to other oscillating effects, such as variations in nuclear moments or the electron mass, and using multiple Mössbauer isotopes in parallel could disentangle which Standard-Model sector the dark matter couples to.
  • A tabletop silver-109 Mössbauer experiment would effectively act as a compact gravitational-wave-style detector for scalar fields; comparing its peak position with a co-located optical cavity could distinguish dark-matter-induced shifts from mundane thermal or vibrational noise.
  • Existing Mössbauer infrastructure for iron-57 might provide a cheaper first validation of the vertical-position technique at modest sensitivity before committing to the more demanding silver-109 target.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a stationary Mössbauer spectroscopy setup to search for ultralight scalar dark matter. The dark-matter field induces sinusoidal shifts in nuclear transition energies; the authors propose to read out these shifts as vertical displacements of the resonance position through the gravitational redshift in the Earth's field. They estimate projected 95% C.L. sensitivities for three isotopes (109Ag, 45Sc, 67Zn) for scalar couplings to photons (fγ), gluons (fg), and quarks (yd). The central result is that 109Ag, with its extremely narrow linewidth, could reach fγ^{-1}~1e-18 GeV^{-1}, fg^{-1}~1e-21 GeV^{-1}, and yd~1e-22 GeV^{-1} over the mass range 1e-15-1e-8 eV, exceeding several current experimental bounds and approaching equivalence-principle limits.

Significance. If the projected sensitivities are realized, the proposed technique would open a new, table-top window into ultralight scalar dark matter, with the 109Ag channel competitive with or better than existing atom-interferometry and cavity experiments. The paper's strengths are its clear exposition of the static readout idea, inclusion of three candidate isotopes, and comparison with many existing constraints (GEO 600, Dynamical Decoupling, DAMNED, Holometer, MICROSCOPE, Eöt-Wash). The central claim, however, depends on a specific treatment of the oscillatory dark-matter signal and on an assumed, not yet demonstrated, 109Ag experimental linewidth; until those are addressed, the headline numbers should be regarded as optimistic projections rather than robust sensitivity estimates.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV, Eqs. (2), (6), (8), (11)] The dark-matter-induced energy shift in Eq. (2) is sinusoidal in t, so the resonance position Z0(t) in Eq. (6) is time-dependent. Nevertheless, Eq. (11) treats the measurement as Nexp=1e6 independent static observations with Δt=T/3, and Eq. (8) and Fig. 2 fit a time-independent Z0. No time-binned likelihood, phase-coherent demodulation, or matched-filter treatment is provided. If the data are integrated over full periods, the net shift averages to zero; if one-third-period windows are used, the unknown phase must be searched and the statistical enhancement is not simply the static sqrt(Nexp) gain. Since the headline 1e-18 to 1e-22 GeV^{-1} sensitivities rely directly on this Nexp enhancement, the signal-processing treatment must be supplied before the projections can be accepted.
  2. [Table I and §IV] The 109Ag sensitivity is built on the assumed experimental linewidth Γexp=1.9×10^-16 eV, explicitly labeled 'we assume ... for an estimate' in the Table I footnote and taken from the authors' prior work [19]. This is not a measured value. The resonance response in Eq. (5) and the assigned bin width (10 µm, half the broadened peak) scale roughly linearly with Γexp, so a modest broadening degrades the projected couplings proportionally. The manuscript should either present a realistic linewidth-broadening budget for a concrete 109Ag source/absorber system or show how the sensitivities vary for a range of Γexp values.
  3. [§IV, Eqs. (15)-(16), Figs. 3-4] The statistical procedure that converts the 1000 Monte Carlo position fits into the plotted 95% C.L. coupling limits is not specified. Eq. (16) derives a total-count requirement from a 3σ criterion, but the actual fits use the χ² of Eq. (8); the paper does not state the null hypothesis, the scan statistic, or how the 95% confidence interval of ΔZ0 is obtained and mapped to fγ^{-1}, fg^{-1}, yd. This is a load-bearing link between raw photon statistics and the final exclusion contours, and it should be documented explicitly (e.g., likelihood-ratio or Feldman-Cousins construction).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (4)] The denominator in the Lorentzian line shape reads [E−g(Z−Z_S)E−E0]^2, which appears to be a typo; it should likely be [E−g(Z−Z_S)E0]^2. The simplified Eq. (5) is used in the analysis, but the formal expression should be correct.
  2. [Table I and §IV] The natural width of 109Ag is given as 2.3×10^-17 eV in Table I but as 1.1×10^-17 eV in §IV (with 'ideally doubled' to 2.2×10^-17 eV). The text should be made consistent with the tabulated value.
  3. [Abstract and §VI] The abstract cites the mass range 10^-18–10^-8 eV, while the body restricts the projection to 10^-15–10^-8 eV. Please align these ranges.
  4. [Fig. 2] The y-axis label 'photon counts/10 m' should presumably read 'photon counts/10 µm' to match the stated bin width. Also, the caption says 'Fitted line' and 'Pseudo data' but the fitted functional form and the generation procedure are not described in the text.
  5. [Eq. (15)] The notation '≥3σ' is ambiguous: if σ denotes the standard deviation, the inequality is NS/sqrt(NS+NB) ≥ 3, not 3σ. The symbol σ is also reused for the cross section in Eq. (4). Please use distinct notation.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

One load-bearing self-citation sets the 109Ag headline: projected limits scale linearly with Gamma_exp, assumed (not measured) as 1.9e-16 eV from the authors' own [19]; the rest of the chain (Eqs. 1-20) is explicit and independent. The oscillating-signal demodulation gap is flagged as a correctness risk, not circularity.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Table I (footnote); Sections III-IV, Eqs. (5)-(7), (11)-(16)]
    "For 109Ag, we assume 1.9×10−16 eV for an estimate [19]. ... This 109Ag linewidth corresponds to a vertical displacement of about 20µm in Earth's gravitational field with g= 9.8 m/s2. To ensure precise localization, the detector is designed with a spatial resolution of 10µm."

    By Eq. (7), the observable is δZ0 = g^{-1}ΔE/E0; its resolution is set by Γexp through Eq. (5) and the bin width 0.5 g^{-1}Γexp/E0, and the 95% interval on the fitted Z0 (Eq. (8), Fig. 2) scales with Γexp. Equating Eq. (7) with Eqs. (18)-(20) then gives the fγ/fg/yd limits, so the headline 109Ag sensitivities scale ~linearly with Γexp/E0. The 109Ag value Γexp = 1.9×10^{-16} eV is not measured but assumed, citing [19], prior work by overlapping authors (Y. Gao, W. Xu). The 'prediction' is thus that assumed self-cited linewidth multiplied by computed photon statistics — an explicit function of an unverified self-cited input. Because the assumption is disclosed and the photon-statistics and nuclear-shift chain is independent, this is partial inheritance, not a by-construction reduction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is explicit: Eq. (1)-(2) give the oscillating DM field and the emitter-absorber energy shift; Eq. (3)-(7) map that shift through a Lorentzian transmission function to a vertical resonance displacement; Eq. (8)-(16) define the χ²/MC photon-statistics estimate; Eqs. (17)-(20) import energy-shift formulas from the independent paper [33]; equating Eq. (7) with Eqs. (18)-(20) yields the projected coupling limits. I find no step where a result equals its input by construction: no parameter is fitted to data and then reported as a prediction (the 1000 pseudo-experiments are simulated), the shift formulas [33] are external, the 45Sc and 67Zn linewidths are observed, and the final limits are explicit algebraic functions of stated assumptions. The single inheritance from the authors' own prior work is the assumed 109Ag experimental linewidth Γexp = 1.9×10^-16 eV (Table I), cited to [19] (overlapping authors Y. Gao, W. Xu). Because position resolution — and therefore every headline 109Ag limit — scales linearly with Γexp, the standout claim (fγ^-1 ~ 10^-18 GeV^-1) is that self-cited, as-yet-unmeasured premise rescaled by computed photon statistics; I flag this as a load-bearing self-citation and score 4, not 6, because the assumption is disclosed and the surrounding statistical and nuclear-physics chain is independent. Per the reviewing rule I also flag, as a correctness risk rather than circularity, that Eq. (2) makes ΔE(t) ∝ sin(mϕt+...), so Z0(t) oscillates and averages to zero over full periods, while Eq. (11) multiplies Nexp=10^6 periods at Δt=T/3 as independent static looks without specifying phase-coherent demodulation or a time-binned likelihood; a matched-filter analysis is needed before the headline numbers are demonstrated, but this is a statistical-validity omission, not a circular reduction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles or forces. Its central sensitivities depend on a handful of chosen experimental parameters (109Ag linewidth, Nexp, ε, fS, photon fluxes, source activity) and on prior nuclear/ULDM input formulas from [33]. The most delicate free parameter is the assumed 109Ag linewidth, which is not experimentally demonstrated and comes from the authors' own previous proposal.

free parameters (6)
  • 109Ag assumed experimental Mössbauer linewidth Γexp = 1.9×10^-16 eV
    Table I footnote says this is assumed 'for an estimate' from self-cited [19]; no direct measurement is cited. It sets the energy/position resolution and linearly shapes all 109Ag sensitivity curves.
  • DM coherent-period enhancement Nexp = 10^6
    Chosen by hand as the number of DM periods per data-taking period; it multiplies the total photon count in Eq. (11) and therefore directly improves the projected sensitivity.
  • Effective absorption fraction ε = 0.8
    Assumed for all isotopes based on an optimum-thickness argument from [19]/[36]; enters the signal fraction in Eq. (16) and the height-bin fits.
  • Recoil-free fractions fS = 0.05 (109Ag), 0.75 (45Sc), 0.2 (67Zn)
    Adopted from literature; fS is a linear factor in photon statistics and is particularly small for 109Ag, which weakens its sensitivity despite the narrow line.
  • Synchrotron spectral photon flux N_SR^γ for 45Sc = 1×10^12 ph s^-1 meV^-1
    Assumed for the European XFEL from [21]; drives the 45Sc(SR) projections and would improve with future XFEL oscillators.
  • Source activity A for radioactive sources = 0.1 Ci (3.7 GBq)
    Assumed benchmark for 109Ag, 45Sc, and 67Zn; scales all photon-counting statistics.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Local ULDM field is a coherent classical wave with ρ_DM ≈ 0.4 GeV/cm^3 and virial velocity β ≈ 10^-3–10^-4, coherent over Nexp periods
    Invoked in Eq. (1) and throughout; standard ULDM picture, but the coherence time Nexp = 10^6 is chosen by hand and sets the integration time.
  • domain assumption Nuclear energy shifts from scalar DM couplings are given by Eqs. (18)–(20): ΔE ≈ Zα^2/(A^1/3 r0) Δφ/fγ, ΔE ≈ 2.5 y_d Δφ, ΔE ≈ 0.08 GeV Δφ/fg
    Taken from [33]; if the nuclear matrix-element estimates have O(1) corrections, the absolute coupling limits shift but the scheme itself is unaffected.
  • domain assumption Mössbauer transmission is a Lorentzian with peak absorption fraction fS ε and observed linewidth Γexp
    Standard Mössbauer physics used in Eq. (5); the observed linewidth for 109Ag is assumed, not measured.
  • standard math Gravitational redshift maps a photon energy shift to a vertical position offset via δE/E = g δZ
    Used to convert resonance energy shifts into vertical detector displacements in Eqs. (6)–(7); standard weak-field general relativity.
  • domain assumption Photon, gluon, and quark couplings are treated separately with no interference
    Section VI states the sensitivity is estimated for one coupling at a time, 'ignoring potential interferences'; standard practice for single-coupling limits.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12452 in / 18306 out tokens · 187323 ms · 2026-08-04T06:28:55.612192+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate the feasibility of probing the interactions between ultralight scalar dark matter and atomic nuclei using a stationary M\"ossbauer spectroscopy scheme. The exceptional energy resolution of the M\"ossbauer resonance enables searches for tiny nuclear energy shifts induced by the local dark matter field. The dark matter mass range considered in this work is $10^{-18}$--$10^{-8}~\mathrm{eV}$. We present projected constraints for two candidate M\"ossbauer isotopes, $^{109}\mathrm{Ag}$ and $^{45}\mathrm{Sc}$, with $^{109}\mathrm{Ag}$ providing the strongest sensitivity. For $^{109}\mathrm{Ag}$, projected sensitivities as low as approximately $10^{-19}$, $10^{-22}$, and $10^{-21}~\mathrm{GeV^{-1}}$ can be achieved for the scalar DM--photon, DM--gluon, and DM--quark couplings $f_{\gamma}^{-1}$, $f_{g}^{-1}$, and $f_{\hat{m}}^{-1}$, respectively. In the low-mass region, the projected sensitivity to the scalar DM--photon coupling approaches the current constraints from equivalence-principle (EP) tests. These results demonstrate that M\"ossbauer-based techniques provide a promising and competitive approach for probing ultralight dark matter interactions with Standard Model particles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.18960 by Hai-Bo Li, Peng-fei Yin, Peng-Long Zhang, Qin Chang, Wei Xu, Xiao-Jun Bi, Yu Gao, Yu-Ming Yang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Illustration for a vertical shift in resonance location. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: For the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Projected sensitivity to the scalar DM–photon coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Projected sensitivity to the scalar DM-gluon coupling [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗

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

51 extracted references · 29 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  2. [2]

    Corbelli and P

    E. Corbelli and P. Salucci, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.311, 441 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9909252

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  3. [3]

    Clowe, M

    D. Clowe, M. Bradac, A. H. Gonzalez, M. Markevitch, S. W. Randall, C. Jones, and D. Zaritsky, Astrophys. J. Lett.648, L109 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0608407

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  4. [4]

    Clowe, A

    D. Clowe, A. Gonzalez, and M. Markevitch, Astrophys. J.604, 596 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0312273

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  5. [5]

    Markevitch, A

    M. Markevitch, A. H. Gonzalez, L. David, A. Vikhlinin, S. Murray, W. Forman, C. Jones, and W. Tucker, Astrophys. J. Lett.567, L27 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0110468

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  6. [6]

    Jungman, M

    G. Jungman, M. Kamionkowski, and K. Griest, Phys. Rept.267, 195 (1996), arXiv:hep-ph/9506380

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  7. [7]

    E. G. M. Ferreira, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.29, 7 (2021), arXiv:2005.03254 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    M. S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille, D. F. J. Kimball, A. Derevianko, and C. W. Clark, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 025008 (2018), arXiv:1710.01833 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  9. [9]

    Antypas, D

    D. Antypas, D. Budker, V. V. Flambaum, M. G. Kozlov, G. Perez, and J. Ye, Annalen Phys.532, 1900566 (2020), arXiv:1912.01335 [physics.atom-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  10. [10]

    Damour and A

    T. Damour and A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B423, 532 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9401069

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  11. [11]

    J. D. Barrow, Phys. Rev. D59, 043515 (1999)

    1999

  12. [12]

    H. B. Sandvik, J. D. Barrow, and J. Magueijo, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 031302 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0107512

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  13. [13]

    Arvanitaki, J

    A. Arvanitaki, J. Huang, and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. D91, 015015 (2015), arXiv:1405.2925 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 201301 (2015), arXiv:1503.08540 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  15. [15]

    Banerjee, H

    A. Banerjee, H. Kim, and G. Perez, Phys. Rev. D100, 115026 (2019), arXiv:1810.01889 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  16. [16]

    A. Hees, O. Minazzoli, E. Savalle, Y. V. Stadnik, and P. Wolf, Phys. Rev. D98, 064051 (2018), arXiv:1807.04512 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Savalle, B

    E. Savalle, B. M. Roberts, F. Frank, P.-E. Pottie, B. T. McAllister, C. Dailey, A. Derevianko, and P. Wolf, (2019), arXiv:1902.07192 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  18. [18]

    R. L. M¨ ossbauer, Z. Phys.151, 124 (1958)

    1958

  19. [19]

    Y. Gao, H. Zhang, and W. Xu, Sci. Bull.69, 2795 (2024), arXiv:2310.06607 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    M. E. D. Center, Properties of isotopes relevant to mossbauer spectroscopy,http://www.medc.dicp.ac.cn/Resources.htm (2025), accessed: 07 11, 2025

    2025

  21. [21]

    Shvyd’ko, R

    Y. Shvyd’ko, R. R¨ ohlsberger, O. Kocharovskaya,et al., Nature622, 471 (2023)

    2023

  22. [22]

    Deckinget al., Nature Photon.14, 391 (2020)

    W. Deckinget al., Nature Photon.14, 391 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    S. Liu, C. Grech, M. Guetg,et al., Nature Photonics17, 984 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    J. Wan, Y. Leng, B. Gao, F. Chen, J. Chen, L. Lai, W. Zhou, and W. Xu, Nucl. Instrum. Meth. A1026, 166200 (2022)

    2022

  25. [25]

    Z.-T. Zhao, C. Feng, and K.-Q. Zhang, Nucl. Sci. Tech.28, 117 (2017)

    2017

  26. [26]

    Z. Zhao, C. Feng, J. Chen, and Z. Wang, Science Bulletin61, 720 (2016)

    2016

  27. [27]

    Wanget al., JACoWIP AC2023, TUPL043 (2023)

    X. Wanget al., JACoWIP AC2023, TUPL043 (2023)

    2023

  28. [28]

    Z. Li, J. Shao, H. Qizhang, J. Yang, and W. Zhang, JACoWLINAC2024, TUPB048 (2024)

    2024

  29. [29]

    Griesinger, R

    D. Griesinger, R. V. Pound, and W. Vetterling, Phys. Rev. B15, 3291 (1977)

    1977

  30. [30]

    Katila and K

    T. Katila and K. Riski, Physics Letters A83, 51 (1981)

    1981

  31. [31]

    Potzel, C

    W. Potzel, C. Sch¨ afer, M. Steiner,et al., Hyperfine Interact72, 195–214 (1992)

    1992

  32. [32]

    Liuet al., (2025), arXiv:2508.17538 [quant-ph]

    P. Liuet al., (2025), arXiv:2508.17538 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  33. [33]

    Gratta, D

    G. Gratta, D. E. Kaplan, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D102, 115031 (2020), arXiv:2010.03588 [hep-ph]. 11

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    Shvyd’koet al., Nature622, 471 (2023)

    Y. Shvyd’koet al., Nature622, 471 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Sturhahn, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter16, S497 (2004)

    W. Sturhahn, Journal of Physics: Condensed Matter16, S497 (2004)

    2004

  36. [36]

    G. J. Long, T. E. Cranshaw, and G. Longworth, M¨ ossbauer Effect Reference and Data Journal6, 42 (1983)

    1983

  37. [37]

    Wildner and U

    W. Wildner and U. Gonser, Le Journal De Physique Colloques40(1979)

    1979

  38. [38]

    Potzel, Zinc-67 m¨ ossbauer spectroscopy, inM¨ ossbauer Spectroscopy Applied to Magnetism and Materials Science, edited by G

    W. Potzel, Zinc-67 m¨ ossbauer spectroscopy, inM¨ ossbauer Spectroscopy Applied to Magnetism and Materials Science, edited by G. J. Long and F. Grandjean (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1993) pp. 305–371

    1993

  39. [39]

    https://www-nds.iaea.org/relnsd/vcharthtml/VChartHTML.html

  40. [40]

    Murayama, Lecture notes on many body problems, http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/221B-S01/8.pdf

    H. Murayama, Lecture notes on many body problems, http://hitoshi.berkeley.edu/221B-S01/8.pdf

  41. [41]

    S. M. Vermeulenet al.10.1038/s41586-021-04031-y (2021), arXiv:2103.03783 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  42. [42]

    Aharony, N

    S. Aharony, N. Akerman, R. Ozeri, G. Perez, I. Savoray, and R. Shaniv, Phys. Rev. D103, 075017 (2021), arXiv:1902.02788 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    Savalle, A

    E. Savalle, A. Hees, F. Frank, E. Cantin, P.-E. Pottie, B. M. Roberts, L. Cros, B. T. Mcallister, and P. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 051301 (2021), arXiv:2006.07055 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  44. [44]

    Aiello, J

    L. Aiello, J. W. Richardson, S. M. Vermeulen, H. Grote, C. Hogan, O. Kwon, and C. Stoughton, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 121101 (2022), arXiv:2108.04746 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  45. [45]

    Touboulet al., Phys

    P. Touboulet al., Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 231101 (2017), arXiv:1712.01176 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  46. [46]

    Berg´ e, P

    J. Berg´ e, P. Brax, G. M´ etris, M. Pernot-Borr` as, P. Touboul, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 141101 (2018), arXiv:1712.00483 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  47. [47]

    G. L. Smith, C. D. Hoyle, J. H. Gundlach, E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel, and H. E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D61, 022001 (2000), arXiv:2405.10982 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  48. [48]

    Schlamminger, K

    S. Schlamminger, K. Y. Choi, T. A. Wagner, J. H. Gundlach, and E. G. Adelberger, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 041101 (2008), arXiv:0712.0607 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  49. [49]

    Banks, E

    H. Banks, E. Fuchs, and M. McCullough, (2024), arXiv:2407.11112 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    Adamset al., (2019), arXiv:1903.09317 [physics.ins-det]

    B. Adamset al., (2019), arXiv:1903.09317 [physics.ins-det]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  51. [51]

    Liu, K.-F

    S. Liu, K.-F. Lyu, J. Meng, J. Shu, Y. Wang, and Y. Zhao, Probing axion via m¨ ossbauer spectroscopy (2025), arXiv:2511.14851 [hep-ph]

    arXiv 2025