4.8 Article

Atomic Ionization by Scalar Dark Matter and Solar Scalars

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
Volume 127, Issue 8, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.127.081301

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Australian Research Council [DP190100974, DP200100150]
  2. Gutenberg Fellowship
  3. U.S. National Science Foundation [PHY-1912465]
  4. Gordon Godfrey fellowship

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study calculates the cross sections of atomic ionization by absorption of scalar particles in a certain energy range, providing numerical results for relevant atoms and identifying a crucial flaw in previous calculations. It interprets data from the Xenon1T experiment, establishes direct bounds on the coupling of scalars to electrons, and updates axio-ionization cross sections.
We calculate the cross sections of atomic ionization by absorption of scalar particles in the energy range from a few eV to 100 keV. We consider both nonrelativistic particles (dark matter candidates) and relativistic particles that may be produced inside the Sun. We provide numerical results for atoms relevant for direct dark matter searches (O, Na, Ar, Ca, Ge, I, Xe, Wand Tl). We identify a crucial flaw in previous calculations and show that they overestimated the ionization cross sections by several orders of magnitude due to violation of the orthogonality of the bound and continuum electron wave functions. Using our computed cross sections, we interpret the recent data from the Xenon1T experiment, establishing the first direct bounds on coupling of scalars to electrons. We argue that the Xenon1T excess can be explained by the emission of scalars from the Sun. Although our finding is in a similar tension with astrophysical bounds as the solar axion hypothesis, we establish direct limits on scalar DM for the 1-10 keV mass range. We also update axio-ionization cross sections. Numerical data files are provided.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available