Abstract
Quantum sensors based on the superposition of neutral atoms are promising for sensing the nature of dark matter (DM). In this study, we utilize the Stern–Gerlach (SG) interferometer configuration to seek a novel method for the detection of axion-like particles (ALPs). Using an SG interferometer, we create a spatial quantum superposition of neutral atoms such as \(^{3}\)He and \(^{87}\)Rb. It is shown that the interaction of ALPs with this superposition induces a relative phase between superposed quantum components. We use the quantum Boltzmann equation (QBE) to introduce a first-principles analysis that describes the temporal evolution of the sensing system. The QBE approach employs quantum field theory (QFT) to highlight the role of the quantum nature of the interactions with the quantum systems. The resulting exclusion area demonstrates that our scheme allows for the exclusion of a range of ALP mass in the range \(10^{-10}\le m_{a}\le 10^{2}\,\textrm{eV}\) and ALP-atom coupling constant in the range \(10^{-13}\le g_{ae}\le 10^{0}\).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
For almost a century, observations of kinematics and mass profiles of galaxy clusters [76].
This paper aims to study the interaction between ALPs with neutral atoms moving in an SG interferometer using quantum field theory (QFT) techniques. Considering an initial superposition state for neutral atoms, we investigate the time evolution of the density matrix of the system by QBE to numerically calculate the relative phase shift induced by ALP-atom coupling inside the SG interferometer [77]. We consider both the forward scattering and the collision terms of the QBE, assuming the ALP scalar field exists in a coherent state. We find the exclusion regions provided by this process and compare them with other proposals for two types of neutral atoms, \(^{3}\)He and \(^{87}\)Rb.
In the rest of the paper, we use the natural unit set \(c=\hbar =1\), while we know that all subsequent values of velocity components are some multiples of c, where c is the speed of light in vacua. The paper is organized as follows. In Sect. 2, we introduce the effective Hamiltonian of the process and the density matrix of the system, and we describe our scheme. In Sect. 3, we study the QBE and calculate its forward scattering and collision terms related to the ALP scalar field to be in a coherent state. In Sect. 4, we report the results by plotting exclusion regions for the total forward scattering and collision terms. Finally, in Sect. 5, we end with conclusions.
2 Effective interaction Hamiltonian and the density matrix of the effective two-level system
In this section, we first write down the Hamiltonian density of the interacting neutral atoms and ALPs as DM in the SG interferometer configuration. To this end, we ignore the interaction between ALPs as DM and the magnetic field of the SG interferometer.
A magnetic field provides a spatial superposition for the spin particles. Their paths create a closed loop in such a way that finally recombines the different components (for more details about the full-loop SG interferometer, see Appendix A). We will effectively characterize the closed loop using time- and spin-dependent momenta. We assume that neutral atoms are effectively a two-level system and can initially be split into a superposition state [78,79,80,81]. During the movement of these neutral atoms in the interferometer, the ALPs interact with them. After recombination, the difference phase induced by this interaction contains information about the coupling and the mass of the ALPs which have occurred within the interferometer. We introduce an effective two-level system to describe the atoms in our interferometer. We assume that such a two-level system is effectively characterized by a Dirac spinor. Hence, the effective Hamiltonian density of the interaction between these neutral atoms and the ALPs as DM is expressed as
in which the coupling constant of the interaction is
where \(m_{f}\) is the mass of the two-level neutral atom system, \(g_{af}\) is the dimensionless coupling constant of ALP-atom interaction, \(\psi \) is the Dirac spinor with its adjoint \(\bar{\psi }=\psi ^{\dag }\gamma ^{0}\), and \(\phi (\textbf{x},t)\) is the ALP scalar field. We also assume that the ALP scalar field is homogeneous, and hence one can set \(\mu =0\) in the effective Hamiltonian density (1).
To express the corresponding S-matrix element describing this process, we write down the ALP field and the spinor field in terms of the creation and the annihilation operators. The Fourier transform of the ALP field is written in terms of the creation and the annihilation operators as
in which we have
where \(q^{0}\) is the 0-th component of four-momentum q of the ALP quantized scalar field, and \(\hat{d}(q)\) and \(\hat{d}^{\dag }(q)\) are the annihilation and creation operators of the ALPs, respectively, satisfying the following canonical commutation relation
In the non-relativistic regime, \(q^{0}\approx m_{a}\), where \(m_{a}\) is the mass of ALPs. As mentioned, the spinor field effectively describes the two-level atom. We can write the Fourier transform of the spinor field for neutral atoms as
in which we have
where \(u_{r}\) is the free spinor solution of the Dirac equation, p is the four-momentum, \(\hat{b}_{r}^{\dag }(p)\) and \(\hat{b}_{r}(p)\) are the creation and annihilation operators associated with spin 1/2 systems, here neutral atoms, respectively, and the spin index \(r=1,2\) counts two spin states of neutral atoms. Also, \(\hat{b}_{r}^{\dag }(p)\) and \(\hat{b}_{r}(p)\) obey the following canonical anti-commutation relation
Figure 1 shows the scattering process. Therefore, the effective interaction Hamiltonian describing this process can be written in the following form
Now, following the approach of Refs. [69,76], and using (3) and (6), the effective interaction Hamiltonian \(H^{0}_{\textrm{int}}(t)\) in Fourier space can be rewritten as follows
where the superscript 0 in \(H^{0}_{\textrm{int}}(t)\) denotes that the effective interaction Hamiltonian is a functional of the free fields, and \(\mathcal {M}(\textbf{p}\,r,\textbf{p}'\,r')=g\bar{u}_{r'}(\textbf{p}')\gamma ^{0}\gamma ^{5}u_{r} (\textbf{p})\) is the scattering matrix element, in which \(u_{r}\) is the free spinor describing the neutral atoms
where \(\chi _{r}\) is the bispinor of the two-level system with spin index r that generally can be read as
Moreover, in Eq. (10) we have used the following abbreviations
As mentioned earlier, we provide a superposition state between spin states of neutral atoms as \((\left| {\uparrow } \right\rangle +\left| {\downarrow } \right\rangle )\), in which the initial phase is considered zero. Then, the superposition state of neutral atoms interacting with ALPs in the SG interferometer transforms into \((\left| {\uparrow } \right\rangle +f\left| {\downarrow } \right\rangle )\) state, where f is the decoherence factor. The superposition state will be preserved during the process. On the other hand, we take into account a spin-dependent momentum for neutral atoms. Hence, two paths of the SG interferometer are dependent on the spin indices of neutral atoms. Therefore, over the mesoscopic time scale \(t_{\textrm{mes}}\), the sign of the momentum of neutral atoms will change between the upper and the lower paths of the SG interferometer. Consequently, the momentum of the neutral atoms is time-dependent (as a similar approach, see Ref. [20]). We use the Heaviside step function \(\Theta \) to write the momentum of neutral atoms. Because the z-axis is considered in the down-to-up direction, only the sign of the z-component of the momentum of neutral atoms changes during the process. This situation is illustrated in Fig. 2. This figure represents the scheme of our setup over \(t_{\textrm{mes}}\) on which the evolution of the mesoscopic system occurs. Hence, we can express the momentum of neutral atoms in the form of
where T is the duration of the whole process. Moreover, we generally have \(k=(k^{0},\textbf{k})\), where in the non-relativistic regime we can write \(k^{0}\approx m_{f}\).
The scheme of the experimental setup over \(t_{\textrm{mes}}\), in which \(k_{3}\) is the third component of the momentum of neutral atoms. The blue-red circle illustrates the superposition of two neutral atom states at the beginning and end of the process. One of two states,i.e., the up state, proceeds in the upper loop with a blue line, and the other, the down state, moves in the lower path with a red line. Due to the effect of the magnetic field, at \(t_{\textrm{mes}}=0\), the superposition states of neutral atoms separate from each other so that each state (up and down) moves in one of the SG loops. Around \(t_{\textrm{mes}}=T/2\), the ALP DM interacts with neutral atoms. Then, at \(t_{\textrm{mes}}=T\), the inverse effect of the magnetic field leads to bringing the two states of neutral atoms back together (for more details, see Appendix A)
One can read the density operator of a system of neutral atoms in the form of
in which the macroscopic properties of the neutral atoms in the SG interferometer are described by \(\rho _{ij}\) as the neutral atom polarization (density) matrix. Consequently, the expectation value of the neutral atom number operator \(\mathcal {\hat{D}}_{ij}(\textbf{k})=\hat{b}_{i}^{\dag }(\textbf{k})\hat{b}_{j}(\textbf{k})\) can be read as [70]
The density matrix \(\rho _{ij}(\textbf{k})\) of a system of neutral atoms can be parameterized using Bloch vector [75, 82]. Therefore, we can write
where \(\mathbb {I}\) is the \(2\times 2\) identity matrix, \(\mathbf {\sigma }\) is the Pauli vector made by Pauli matrices, and \(\zeta _{i}\) are the components of the Bloch vector constructing the Bloch sphere. One can read \(\zeta _{1}-\textrm{i}\zeta _{2}=f\), in which the decoherence factor can be expressed as
where \(\epsilon \) is a dimensionless factor to measure the decoherence, and \(\varphi \) is a phase measuring the path differences between two paths of the SG interferometer [76] gives the time evolution of the density matrix elements as
where the interaction time scale of individual particles takes place on the microscopic time scale \(t_{\textrm{mic}}\). The first term on the right-hand side of Eq. (19) is known as the forward scattering term, while the second is the usual collision term. The forward scattering term vanishes if the ALP scalar field is in a vacuum state. However, assuming the scalar field to be in a coherent state, this term is non-vanishing. We display operator expectation values needed here using Wick’s theorem as follows [70]
where \(n_{a}(\textbf{q},\textbf{x})\) is the ALP number density of momentum \(\textbf{q}\) per unit volume. One can also express the number density in terms of the velocity distribution of the ALPs as DM [83]
where \(\textbf{v}_{a}\) is the velocity of the ALPs, and we have \(\sigma _{v}=\upsilon _{0}/\sqrt{2}\) in which \(\upsilon _{0}=220\,\mathrm {km/s}\) is the circular rotation speed of the standard halo model; \(\left| \textbf{V}^{E}\right| =230\,\mathrm {km/s}\) is the velocity of the Earth with respect to the galactic frame, and we also have \(n_{a}(\textbf{x})=\rho ^{DM}/m_{a}\), with \(\rho ^{DM}=0.3\,\mathrm {GeV/cm^{3}}\) as the energy density of the DM near the Earth [83]. Also, we have
Therefore, we can find the following expectation value
For the case where the ALP scalar field is in a coherent state, the expectation value of the annihilation operator of the ALP scalar field in the non-relativistic limit yields [26, 84]
where the amplitude of the coherently oscillating ALP scalar field is [26, 84]
Now, from Eqs. (17) and (19), we can find the time derivatives of Bloch vector components as the building blocks of the density matrix of neutral atoms in the following form
where we use \(\textbf{k}=m_{f}\textbf{v}\) in the non-relativistic regime, in which \(\textbf{v}=(v_{1},v_{2},v_{3})\) is the velocity of neutral atoms. Equation (27) results in a set of coupled differential equations for the Bloch vector components. Solving these equations, one finds the relative phase shift arising from the interaction.
3.1 Forward scattering term
The forward scattering term on the right-hand side of Eq. (19) can be approximately expressed as
Therefore, using Eqs. (23) and (25) we get
After integrating over \(\textbf{x},\, \textbf{p},\, \textbf{p}',\) and \(\textbf{q}\), the following result is achieved
3.2 Collision term
The integrand in the collision term on the right-hand side of Eq. (19) can be approximately expressed as follows
It should be noted that operators in Eq. (31) with index “1” associated with \(H^{0}_{\textrm{int}}(t_{\textrm{mes}})\) are functions of \(t_{\textrm{mes}}\), and operators with index “2” associated with \(H^{0\dagger }_{\textrm{int}}(t_{\textrm{mic}})\) are functions of \(t_{\textrm{mic}}\).
Thus, using Eqs. (21) and (24), one can express the QBE (19) associated with the collision term as
After integrating over \(\textbf{x},\, \textbf{x}',\, \textbf{p}_{1},\, \textbf{p}_{2},\, \textbf{p}'_{1},\, \textbf{p}'_{2},\) and \(\textbf{q}_{1}\) and using Eqs. (11)–(14), one can read Eq. (32) in the following form in terms of velocities of neutral atoms and ALPs
where \(P^{0}=E(\textbf{k}-\textbf{q})\) and \(P'^{0}=E(\textbf{k}+\textbf{q})\), and we employed the approximation \(\rho (\textbf{k}-\textbf{q})\approx \rho (\textbf{k}+\textbf{q})\approx \rho (\textbf{k})\) as well as \(q^{0}\approx m_{a}\). Also, we utilized the following abbreviation
Now, for the right-hand side of Eq. (33), one should first take the time integral over \(t_{\textrm{mic}}\). Then, by converting the exponential functions gained to the sinc functions and assuming energy conservation, one can calculate the integration over \(\textbf{v}_{a}\) in Eq. (33).
4 Estimate of the induced phase
We numerically solve the QBE for both the forward and the collision terms. The forward scattering term induces only the relative phase shift, while the collision term is responsible for both the relative phase shift and decoherence. Our numerical investigation shows that the effect of the collision term, however, is dominated by the forward scattering term. Accordingly, the induced decoherence is suppressed because of the smallness of the collision term effect. In the following, we will discuss these results in more detail.
Using Eqs. (27), (30), and (33), the following final results for the time evolution of the Bloch vector components associated with both the forward scattering and collision terms are obtained as the following three coupled differential equations
where the explicit forms of coefficients \(W_{i}, Z_{i}\), and \(Y_{i}\) are given in Appendix B.
We provide the system such that the initial phase is \(\varphi _{0}=0\). Then, from Eq. (18), one can obtain the relative phase shift as
This equation gives us the time evolution of phase measure within the decoherence factor (18) during the process. One can numerically solve the set of Eqs. (35) to calculate the relative phase shift (36) due to the interaction of neutral atoms with ALPs. To this end, we consider two types of neutral atoms, \(^{3}\)He and \(^{87}\)Rb, moving in the SG interferometer.
Next, we turn our attention to the phase sensitivity of the system and the time duration of the process. The phase sensitivity is defined as the smallest measurable phase shift, which is determined by the number of nucleons, typical contrast, and other factors. On the other hand, the time duration of the process is the total time during which the effective spin 1/2 atom are within the SG interferometer. Among the available values chosen by the proposed experiments, we assume that the minimum phase (phase sensitivity) provided by the setup is of the order of \(\Delta \varphi _{\min }=10^{-10}\,\textrm{Rad}\) and the time duration of the process is of the order of \(T=2.6\times 10^{-4}\,\textrm{s}\) [15].
The exclusion areas in the plane of ALP mass and the coupling constant of ALP–electron interaction for \(^{\textit{3}}\)He and \(^{\textit{87}}\)Rb compared with other proposals [92]
We plot the regions that our scheme can exclude for these particles. We compare the data from underground detectors PandaX-II [85], SuperCDMS [86], and XENON1T (ALP DM search single electron) [87]; data from haloscope QUAX [88, 89]; and Astro bound Red giant branch [90] and Solar \(\nu \) [91], with total outcome of \(^{3}\)He and \(^{87}\)Rb, in Fig. 3. In this figure, \(g_{ae}\) (equivalent to \(g_{af}\) in Eq. (2)) is the dimensionless coupling constant of the ALP–electron interaction, which is based on the assumption that ALPs interact with the electrons of the atom that we have considered as a two-level system. As Fig. 3 illustrates, our scheme has excluded the area between \(10^{-10}\le m_{a}\le 10^{2}\,\textrm{eV}\) and \(10^{-13}\le g_{ae}\le 10^{0}\). Again, it is worth noting that the effect of the collision term is tiny, so its corresponding induced decoherence is negligible.
5 Conclusion and discussion
This paper presented a new scheme for the detection of ALPs as DM by the SG interferometer. ALPs interact with neutral atoms moving in the SG interferometer. The neutral atoms are considered to be in a superposition state, and the time evolution of their corresponding density matrix is derived by considering the forward scattering and the collision terms of the QBE. The interaction results in a relative phase shift between the initial and final superposition states of the effectively two-level neutral atoms. We considered two neutral atoms, \(^{3}\)He and \(^{87}\)Rb, moving in the SG interferometer. Taking a zero initial phase into account, we calculated the induced relative phase shift. This way, we plot the exclusion areas for each neutral atom compared to other proposals. Consequently, we found that our scheme has excluded the area between \(10^{-10}\le m_{a}\le 10^{2}\,\textrm{eV}\) and \(10^{-13}\le g_{ae}\le 10^{0}\). We also propose considering other schemes that use lighter neutral particles such as neutrons with the same minimum phase. Providing such conditions can exclude a wider region compared with other experiments.
Data Availability Statement
This manuscript has no associated data or the data will not be deposited. [Authors’ comment: The paper is based on the analytical and numerical calculations, with no associated experimental data to be deposited].
References
L.M. Voigt, A.C. Fabian, Galaxy cluster mass profiles. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 368, 518–533 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10199.x. ar**v:0602373 [astro-ph]
F. Zwicky, Republication of: The redshift of extragalactic nebulae. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 41(1), 207–224 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10714-008-0707-4
S. Ettori, A. Donnarumma, E. Pointecouteau, T.H. Reiprich, S. Giodini, L. Lovisari, R.W. Schmidt, Mass profiles of galaxy clusters from X-ray analysis. Space Sci. Rev. 177, 119–154 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11214-013-9976-7. ar**v:1303.3530 [astro-ph.CO]
Y. Sofue, V. Rubin, Rotation curves of spiral galaxies. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 39, 137–174 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.39.1.137. ar**v:0010594 [astro-ph]
Y. Sofue, Rotation and mass in the Milky Way and spiral galaxies. Publ. Astron. Soc. Jpn. 69(1), R1 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1093/pasj/psw103. ar**v:1608.08350 [astro-ph.GA]
G. Bertone, D. Hooper, J. Silk, Particle dark matter: evidence, candidates and constraints. Phys. Rep. 405(5–6), 279–390 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031. ar**v:0404175 [hep-ph]
T.M. Undagoitia, L. Rauch, Dark matter direct-detection experiments. J. Phys. G 43(1), 013001 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1088/0954-3899/43/1/013001. ar**v:1509.08767 [physics.ins-det]
G. Bertone, D. Merritt, Dark matter dynamics and indirect detection. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 20(14), 1021–1036 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732305017391. ar**v:0504422 [astro-ph]
O. Buchmueller, C. Doglioni, L.T. Wang, Search for dark matter at colliders. Nat. Phys. 13(3), 217–223 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys4054. ar**v:1912.12739 [hep-ex]
D. Carney, G. Krnjaic, D.C. Moore, C.A. Regal, G. Afek, S. Bhave, Y. Zhao, Mechanical quantum sensing in the search for dark matter. Quantum Sci. Technol. 6(2), 024002 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-9565/abcfcd. ar**v:2008.06074 [physics.ins-det]
D. Carney, A. Hook, Z. Liu, J.M. Taylor, Y. Zhao, Ultralight dark matter detection with mechanical quantum sensors. New J. Phys. 23(2), 023041 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/abd9e7. ar**v:1908.04797 [hep-ph]
A. Belenchia, M. Carlesso, Ö. Bayraktar, D. Dequal, I. Derkach, G. Gasbarri, A. Bassi, Quantum physics in space. Phys. Rep. 951, 1–70 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2021.11.004. ar**v:2108.01435 [quant-ph]
S. Abend, M. Gersemann, C. Schubert, D. Schlippert, E.M. Rasel, M. Zimmermann, W. P. Schleich. Atom interferometry and its applications, in Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi” Course 197: Foundations of Quantum Theory (2019), p. 345–392. https://doi.org/10.3254/978-1-61499-937-9-345. ar**v:2001.10976 [physics.atom-ph]
R. Geiger, A. Landragin, S. Merlet, F. Pereira Dos Santos, High-accuracy inertial measurements with cold-atom sensors. AVS Quantum Sci. 2(2), 024702 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1116/5.0009093. ar**v:2003.12516 [physics.atom-ph]
Y. Du, C. Murgui, K. Pardo, Y. Wang, K.M. Zurek, Atom interferometer tests of dark matter (2022). ar**v:2205.13546 [hep-ph]
C.J. Riedel, Direct detection of classically undetectable dark matter through quantum decoherence. Phys. Rev. D 88(11), 116005 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.116005. ar**v:1212.3061 [quant-ph]
T.W. van de Kamp, R.J. Marshman, S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, Quantum gravity witness via entanglement of masses: Casimir screening. Phys. Rev. A 102(6), 062807 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.062807. ar**v:2006.06931 [quant-ph]
A.J. Leggett, Testing the limits of quantum mechanics: motivation, state of play, prospects. J. Phys. Condens. Matter 14, R415 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1088/0953-8984/14/15/201
M. Arndt, K. Hornberger, Testing the limits of quantum mechanical superpositions. Nat. Phys. 10(4), 271–277 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys2863. ar**v:1410.0270 [quant-ph]
R.J. Marshman, A. Mazumdar, R. Folman, S. Bose, Constructing nano-object quantum superpositions with a Stern–Gerlach interferometer. Phys. Rev. Res. 4(2), 023087 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.023087. ar**v:2105.01094 [quant-ph]
W.G. Unruh, Notes on black-hole evaporation. Phys. Rev. D 14(4), 870 (1976). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.14.870
B.S. DeWitt, Quantum gravity: the new synthesis, in General Relativity ed. by S.W. Hawking, W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1979). https://inspirehep.net/literature/159073
N.K. Kollas, D. Moustos, K. Blekos, Field assisted extraction and swelling of quantum coherence for moving Unruh-DeWitt detectors. Phys. Rev. D 102(6), 065020 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.065020. ar**v:2006.13917 [quant-ph]
J. Foo, S. Onoe, M. Zych, Unruh-deWitt detectors in quantum superpositions of trajectories. Phys. Rev. D 102(8), 085013 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.085013. ar**v:2003.12774 [quant-ph]
N.K. Kollas, D. Moustos, Generation and catalysis of coherence with scalar fields. Phys. Rev. D 105(2), 025006 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.105.025006. ar**v:2103.09165 [quant-ph]
S. Kanno, A. Matsumura, J. Soda, Harvesting quantum coherence from axion dark matter. Mod. Phys. Lett. A 37(05), 2250028 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732322500286. ar**v:2105.12578 [quant-ph]
W. Gerlach, O. Stern, Der experimentelle nachweis der richtungsquantelung im magnetfeld. Zeitschrift für Physik 9(1), 349–352 (1922). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01326983
S. Machluf, Y. Japha, R. Folman, Coherent Stern–Gerlach momentum splitting on an atom chip. Nat. Commun. 4(1), 1–9 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms3424
O. Amit, Y. Margalit, O. Dobkowski, Z. Zhou, Y. Japha, M. Zimmermann, R. Folman, \(T^3\) Stern–Gerlach matter-wave interferometer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 123(8), 083601 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.083601. ar**v:1908.03879 [quant-ph]
C. Henkel, R. Folman, Internal decoherence in nano-object interferometry due to phonons. AVS Quantum Sci. 4(2), 025602 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1116/5.0080503. ar**v:2112.01263 [quant-ph]
Y. Margalit, Z. Zhou, S. Machluf, Y. Japha, S. Moukouri, R. Folman, Analysis of a high-stability Stern–Gerlach spatial fringe interferometer. New J. Phys. 21(7), 073040 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/ab2fdc
Y. Margalit, Z. Zhou, O. Dobkowski, Y. Japha, D. Rohrlich, S. Moukouri, R. Folman, Realization of a complete Stern–Gerlach interferometer. ar**v:1801.02708 [quant-ph] (2018)
Y. Margalit, O. Dobkowski, Z. Zhou, O. Amit, Y. Japha, S. Moukouri, R. Folman, Realization of a complete Stern–Gerlach interferometer: toward a test of quantum gravity. Sci. Adv. 7(22), eabg2879 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abg2879. ar**v:2011.10928 [quant-ph]
G. Gasbarri, A. Belenchia, M. Carlesso, S. Donadi, A. Bassi, R. Kaltenbaek, H. Ulbricht, Testing the foundation of quantum physics in space via Interferometric and non-interferometric experiments with mesoscopic nanoparticles. Commun. Phys. 4(1), 1–13 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s42005-021-00656-7. ar**v:2106.05349 [quant-ph]
E. Adelberger, D. Budker, R. Folman, A.A. Geraci, J.T. Harke, D.M. Kaplan, V. Sudhir, Snowmass white paper: precision studies of spacetime symmetries and gravitational physics. ar**v:2203.09691 [hep-ex] (2022)
D.J. Marsh, Axion cosmology. Phys. Rep. 643, 1–79 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2016.06.005. ar**v:1510.07633 [astro-ph.CO]
F. Chadha-Day, J. Ellis, D.J. Marsh, Axion dark matter: what is it and why now? Sci. Adv. 8(8), eabj3618 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abj3618. ar**v:2105.01406 [hep-ph]
N. Du, N. Force, R. Khatiwada, E. Lentz, R. Ottens, L.J. Rosenberg, ADMX Collaboration, Search for invisible axion dark matter with the axion dark matter experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120(15), 151301 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.151301. ar**v:1804.05750 [hep-ex]
P.W. Graham, S. Rajendran, New observables for direct detection of axion dark matter. Phys. Rev. D 88(3), 035023 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.88.035023. ar**v:1306.6088 [hep-ph]
L.D. Duffy, K. Bibber, Axions as dark matter particles. New J. Phys. 11(10), 105008 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/11/10/105008. ar**v:0904.3346 [hep-ph]
R. Barbieri, C. Braggio, G. Carugno, C.S. Gallo, A. Lombardi, A. Ortolan, C.C. Speake, Searching for galactic axions through magnetized media: the QUAX proposal. Phys. Dark Universe 15, 135–141 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2017.01.003. ar**v:1606.02201 [hep-ph]
R.D. Peccei, H.R. Quinn, CP conservation in the presence of pseudoparticles. Phys. Rev. Lett. 38(25), 1440 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.38.1440
S. Weinberg, H.R. Quinn, A new light boson? Phys. Rev. Lett. 40(4), 223 (1978). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.40.223
F. Wilczek, Two applications of axion electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 58(18), 1799 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1799
E. Witten, Some properties of \(O({32})\) superstrings. Phys. Lett. B 149(4–5), 351–356 (1984). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(84)90422-2
P. Svrcek, E. Witten, Axions in string theory. JHEP 2006(06), 051 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/1126-6708/2006/06/051. ar**v:0605206 [hep-th]
P. Sikivie, Experimental tests of the “invisibl’’ axion. Phys. Rev. Lett. 51(16), 1415 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.51.1415
H. Primakoff, Photo-production of neutral mesons in nuclear electric fields and the mean life of the neutral meson. Phys. Rev. 81(5), 899 (1951). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRev.81.899
M. Zarei, S. Shakeri, M. Sharifian, M. Abdi, D.J. Marsh, S. Matarrese, Probing virtual axion-like particles by precision phase measurements. JCAP 2022(06), 012 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2022/06/012. ar**v:1910.09973 [hep-ph]
W.U. Wuensch, S. De Panfilis-Wuensch, Y.K. Semertzidis, J.T. Rogers, A.C. Melissinos, H.J. Halama, F.A. Nezrick, Results of a laboratory search for cosmic axions and other weakly coupled light particles. Phys. Rev. D 40(10), 3153 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.40.3153
C. Hagmann, P. Sikivie, N.S. Sullivan, D.B. Tanner, Results from a search for cosmic axions. Phys. Rev. D 42(4), 1297 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.42.1297
P. Sikivie, Detection rates for “invisible’’-axion searches. Phys. Rev. D 32(11), 2988 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.32.2988
S. Asztalos, E. Daw, H. Peng, L.J. Rosenberg, C. Hagmann, D. Kinion, R.F. Bradley, Large-scale microwave cavity search for dark-matter axions. Phys. Rev. D 64(9), 092003 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.64.092003
S. Asztalos, G. Carosi, C. Hagmann, D. Kinion, K. Van Bibber, M. Hotz, J. Clarke, SQUID-based microwave cavity search for dark-matter axions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104(4), 041301 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.041301. ar**v:0910.5914 [astro-ph.CO]
J. Hoskins, J. Hwang, C. Martin, P. Sikivie, N.S. Sullivan, D.B. Tanner, J. Clarke, Search for nonvirialized axionic dark matter. Phys. Rev. D 84(12), 121302 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.84.121302. ar**v:1109.4128 [astro-ph.CO]
B.T. McAllister, S.R. Parker, M.E. Tobar, Axion dark matter coupling to resonant photons via magnetic field. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116(16), 161804 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.161804. ar**v:1607.01928 [hep-ph]
P. Arias, A. Arza, J. Gamboa, Mixing of photons with light pseudoscalars in time-dependent magnetic fields. Eur. Phys. J. C 76(11), 1–5 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4483-0. ar**v:1608.03458 [hep-ph]
CAST Collaboration, New CAST limit on the axion-photon interaction. Nat. Phys. 13(6), 584–590 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys4109. ar**v:1705.02290 [hep-ex]
M. Goryachev, B.T. McAllister, M.E. Tobar, Axion detection with precision frequency metrology. Phys. Dark Universe 26, 100345 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2019.100345. ar**v:1806.07141 [physics.ins-det]
M. Dine, W. Fischler, The not-so-harmless axion. Phys. Lett. B 120(1–3), 137–141 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(83)90639-1
J. Preskill, M.B. Wise, F. Wilczek, Cosmology of the invisible axion. Phys. Lett. B 120(1–3), 127–132 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(83)90637-8
M.S. Turner, Coherent scalar-field oscillations in an expanding universe. Phys. Rev. D 28(6), 1243 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.1243
L.F. Abbott, P. Sikivie, A cosmological bound on the invisible axion. Phys. Lett. B 120(1–3), 133–136 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(83)90638-X
R.L. Davis, Goldstone bosons in string models of galaxy formation. Phys. Rev. D 32(12), 3172 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.32.3172
R.L. Davis, Cosmic axions from cosmic strings. Phys. Lett. B 180(3), 225–230 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(86)90300-X
D. Harari, P. Sikivie, On the evolution of global strings in the early universe. Phys. Lett. B 195(3), 361–365 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0370-2693(87)90032-3
R.A. Battye, E.P.S. Shellard, Global string radiation. Nucl. Phys. B 423(1), 260–304 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0550-3213(94)90573-8. ar**v:9311017 [astro-ph]
S. Chang, C. Hagmann, P. Sikivie, Studies of the motion and decay of axion walls bounded by strings. Phys. Rev. D 59(2), 023505 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.59.023505. ar**v:hep-ph/9807374
H.P. Breuer, F. Petruccione, The theory of open quantum systems. OUP (2002). https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199213900.001.0001
A. Kosowsky, Cosmic microwave background polarization. Ann. Phys. 246, 49–85 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1006/aphy.1996.0020. ar**v:9501045 [astro-ph]
M. Zarei, E. Bavarsad, M. Haghighat, R. Mohammadi, I. Motie, Z. Rezaei, Generation of circular polarization of the CMB. Phys. Rev. D 81(8), 084035 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084035. ar**v:0912.2993 [hep-th]
N. Bartolo, A. Hoseinpour, G. Orlando, S. Matarrese, M. Zarei, Photon-graviton scattering: a new way to detect anisotropic gravitational waves? Phys. Rev. D 98(2), 023518 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023518. ar**v:1804.06298 [gr-qc]
N. Bartolo, A. Hoseinpour, S. Matarrese, G. Orlando, M. Zarei, CMB circular and B-mode polarization from new interactions. Phys. Rev. D 100(4), 043516 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043516. ar**v:1903.04578 [hep-ph]
A. Hoseinpour, M. Zarei, G. Orlando, N. Bartolo, S. Matarrese, CMB \(V\) modes from photon-photon forward scattering revisited. Phys. Rev. D 102(6), 063501 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063501. ar**v:2006.14418 [hep-ph]
H. Manshouri, A. Hoseinpour, M. Zarei, Quantum Boltzmann equation for fermions: an attempt to calculate the NMR relaxation and decoherence times using quantum field theory techniques. Phys. Rev. D 103(9), 096020 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.096020. ar**v:2009.01917 [hep-ph]
M. Zarei, N. Bartolo, D. Bertacca, S. Matarrese, A. Ricciardone, Non-Markovian open quantum system approach to the early Universe: dam** of gravitational waves by matter. Phys. Rev. D 104(8), 083508 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.083508. ar**v:2104.04836 [astro-ph.CO]
M. Hatifi, T. Durt, Revealing self-gravity in a Stern–Gerlach Humpty-Dumpty experiment (2020). ar**v:2006.07420 [quant-ph]
C.R. Ekstrom, J. Schmiedmayer, M.S. Chapman, T.D. Hammond, D.E. Pritchard, Measurement of the electric polarizability of sodium with an atom interferometer. Phys. Rev. A 51(5), 3883 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.51.3883
J.D.R. Tommey, S.D. Hogan, Matter-wave interferometry with helium atoms in low-l Rydberg states. Phys. Rev. A 104(3), 033305 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.033305
K. Frye, S. Abend, W. Bartosch, A. Bawamia, D. Becker, H. Blume, L. Wörner, The Bose–Einstein condensate and cold atom laboratory. EPJ Quantum Technol. 8(1), 1 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjqt/s40507-020-00090-8. ar**v:1912.04849 [physics.atom-ph]
B. Friedrich, H. Schmidt-Böcking, Molecular beams in physics and chemistry: from Otto Stern’s pioneering exploits to present-day feats. Springer Nat. (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-63963-1
H.A. Tolhoek, Electron polarization, theory and experiment. Rev. Mod. Phys. 28(3), 277 (1956). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.28.277
N.W. Evans, C.A. ÓHare, C. McCabe, Refinement of the standard halo model for dark matter searches in light of the Gaia Sausage. Phys. Rev. D 99(2), 023012 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.99.023012. ar**v:1810.11468 [astro-ph.GA]
G. Dvali, S. Zell, Classicality and quantum break-time for cosmic axions. JCAP 2018(07), 064 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2018/07/064. ar**v:1710.00835 [hep-ph]
C. Fu, X. Zhou, X. Chen, Y. Chen, X. Cui, D. Fang, PandaX-II Collaboration, Limits on axion couplings from the first 80 days of data of the pandax-II experiment. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119(18), 181806 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.181806. ar**v:1707.07921 [hep-ex]
T. Aralis, T. Aramaki, I.J. Arnquist, E. Azadbakht, W. Baker, S. Banik, SuperCDMS Collaboration, Constraints on dark photons and axionlike particles from the SuperCDMS Soudan experiment. Phys. Rev. D 101(5), 052008 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.101.052008. ar**v:1911.11905 [hep-ex]
E. Aprile, K. Abe, F. Agostini, S.A. Maouloud, M. Alfonsi, L. Althueser, XENON Collaboration, Emission of single and few electrons in XENON1T and limits on light dark matter. Phys. Rev. D 106, 022001 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106.022001. ar**v:2112.12116 [hep-ex]
N. Crescini, D. Alesini, C. Braggio, G. Carugno, D. Di Gioacchino, C.S. Gallo, Q.U.A.X. Collaboration, Operation of a ferromagnetic axion haloscope at \(m_{a}=58\,\rm \mu eV \). Eur. Phys. J. C 78(9), 1–9 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-018-6163-8. ar**v:1806.00310 [hep-ex]
N. Crescini, D. Alesini, C. Braggio, G. Carugno, D. D́Agostino D. Di Gioacchino, QUAX Collaboration, Axion search with a quantum-limited ferromagnetic haloscope. Phys. Rev. Lett. 124(17), 171801 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.171801. ar**v:2001.08940 [hep-ex]
F. Capozzi, G. Raffelt, Axion and neutrino bounds improved with new calibrations of the tip of the red-giant branch using geometric distance determinations. Phys. Rev. D 102(8), 083007 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102.083007. ar**v:2007.03694 [astro-ph.SR]
P. Gondolo, G.G. Raffelt, Solar neutrino limit on axions and keV-mass bosons. Phys. Rev. D 79(10), 107301 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.79.107301. ar**v:0807.2926 [astro-ph]
C. ÓHare, “cajohare/AxionLimits: AxionLimits”. Zenodo v1.0 (2020). https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3932430
B.G. Englert, J. Schwinger, M.O. Scully, Is spin coherence like Humpty-Dumpty? I. Simplified treatment. Found. Phys. 18(10), 1045–1056 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01909939
J. Schwinger, M.O. Scully, B.G. Englert, Is spin coherence like Humpty-Dumpty? II. General theory. Z. Phys. D Atoms Mol. Clust. 10(2), 135–144 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01384847
M.O. Scully, B.G. Englert, J. Schwinger, Spin coherence and Humpty-Dumpty. III. The effects of observation. Phys. Rev. A 40(4), 1775 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.40.1775
T.R. de Oliveira, A.O. Caldeira, Dissipative Stern–Gerlach recombination experiment. Phys. Rev. A 73(4), 042502 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.73.042502. ar**v:0601070 [quant-ph]
D. Bohm, Quantum Theory (Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1951)
R.H. Pratt, I.J. Feng, Electron-Atom Bremsstrahlung, in Atomic Inner-Shell Physics (Springer, Boston, 1985), p. 533–580. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-2417-1_12
H.P. Breuer, F. Petruccione, Destruction of quantum coherence through emission of bremsstrahlung. Phys. Rev. A 63(3), 032102 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.63.032102
In an open quantum system, the bremsstrahlung effect as a fundamental decoherence source can be calculated using the QBE. Thus, the decoherence and dephasing times due to the bremsstrahlung effect can be computed. The method puts some more precise constraints on quantum measurements performed by interferometers. H. Manshouri, and M. Zarei, “A new insight into the decoherence due to the bremsstrahlung effect”, Manuscript in preparation. Department of Physics, Isfahan University of Technology. (2023)
Acknowledgements
MH acknowledges fruitful support by Iran’s National Elites Foundation under the AMS program, and is grateful for the financial support from the Isfahan University of Technology. The authors would like to thank M. Abdi for his insightful discussions and comments. The authors also appreciate the respectful referee for carefully reading the original manuscript and their insightful comments, which have improved the quality of the paper.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Appendix A: On the inaccuracy of the full-loop SG interferometer
In this study, we utilize the SG interferometer to design an experimental scheme for detecting ALPs as a favored candidate for DM. In an SG interferometer, an inhomogeneous magnetic field rather than laser pulses are responsible for producing spatial superposition in wave packets of the effective spin 1/2 atoms over relatively large spatial separation. Four magnetic field gradients are utilized to split, stop, accelerate back, and stop the wave packets to complete a full loop in the SG interferometer. The spin state of the recombined wave packets is used as an interference signal by the full-loop SG interferometer, which recombines the wave packets in both position and momentum. For the purposes of the current study, since the effectively spin 1/2 atoms can absorb or even scatter the laser pulses, one cannot utilize the usual laser-based interferometers (see more details in Ref. [30]). Realistic magnetic field gradients, however, have some inaccuracy, for example, temporal fluctuations.
A formidable challenge known as the Humpty-Dumpty effect [93,94,95,96] makes the ideal full-loop SG interferometer impractical because it leads to decoherence in the output. The Humpty-Dumpty effect briefly states that the interferometer demands a “fantastic accuracy” [97] of the magnetic field gradients to preserve the coherence between superposed wave packets propagating in the different arms of the interferometer, leading to a full-loop SG interferometer. In this scene, if the magnetic field gradients are ideally controlled, a significant amount of coherence can then be recovered [93], and the interferometer is approximately full-loop, while a quantum mechanical point of view requiring realistic magnetic field gradients results in decoherence or loss of coherence, which prevents the SG interferometer from being full-loop [94].
To achieve a sufficiently high full-loop SG interferometer, the time-reversal operation of the splitting process by the first two magnetic gradients should be precisely the same as the recombination process operated by the final two magnetic gradients. This demands stable and accurate operations on the effective spin 1/2 atoms within the interferometer. Therefore, one should adequately minimize the final relative distance and momentum between the wave packets at the final stage. Additionally, the time duration of the splitting process and recombination process should be exactly equal. Furthermore, the magnetic field gradients should be strong enough and quickly switchable to significantly reduce the time duration of the whole process T. Moreover, the location and structure of the magnetic field gradients play a crucial role and should be precise. In addition, one should consider the ultracold wave packets of the effectively spin 1/2 atoms with minimal uncertainty rather than the thermal beams of these atoms. Taking into account the abovementioned considerations, we find that the output of the full-loop SG interferometer is highly coherent.
In addition to the Humpty-Dumpty effect, which prevents the loop of the SG interferometer from being closed, another source of decoherence in the SG interferometer is the coupling of the effectively spin 1/2 ultracold atoms to the environment (for more details, see Ref. [30] and references therein). To suppress the coupling of spin 1/2 ultracold atoms with the environment, the time duration of the whole process should be much shorter than the decoherence time arising from such a coupling [96]. We also assume that our experimental scheme is operated in vacuum conditions. Moreover, such a coupling can be the interaction of the effective spin 1/2 ultracold atoms with an electromagnetic field and the bremsstrahlung effect [98] (which exists even in the vacuum), as it is well known that it can cause decoherence [69, 99]. It can be shown in Ref. [100] that despite the bremsstrahlung effect leading to decoherence, its impact on dephasing time is less than the ALP–atom interaction. Investigations from Ref. [100] demonstrate that the induced phase shift due to the bremsstrahlung effect is of the order of \(\delta \phi \sim 10^{-27}\,\textrm{Rad}\) and \(10^{-28}\,\textrm{Rad}\) for \(^{3}\)He and \(^{87}\)Rb, respectively, which is in agreement with Refs. [69, 99]. Therefore, in this study, the decoherence induced by coupling to the environment and the bremsstrahlung effect can be entirely neglected.
Appendix B: Coefficients of the collision term
To calculate the relative phase shift, the coefficients introduced in Eq. (35) were lengthy. We found them through a straightforward calculation. In the following, we provide their explicit form
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Funded by SCOAP3. SCOAP3 supports the goals of the International Year of Basic Sciences for Sustainable Development.
About this article
Cite this article
Hajebrahimi, M., Manshouri, H., Sharifian, M. et al. Axion-like dark matter detection using Stern–Gerlach interferometer. Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 11 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-11152-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-11152-9