4.7 Article

Screened scalar fields in hydrogen and muonium

Journal

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
Volume 107, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.044008

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

We derive upper and lower bounds on screened scalar field theories using hydrogenlike systems. Direct coupling between matter and new light scalar fields is heavily constrained by experimental measurements. However, certain theories have screening mechanisms that dynamically weaken this coupling and evade many of these constraints. By computing perturbations to the energy levels of hydrogenlike systems due to screened scalar fields, we find weaker bounds from hydrogen spectroscopy than previously reported. Moreover, we show that muonium experiments are more sensitive probes of screened scalar fields, exploring parameter space that low-energy physics has yet to cover and has only been tested by high-energy particle physics experiments.
We compute bounds on screened scalar field theories from hydrogenlike systems. New light scalar fields generically have a direct coupling to matter. Such a coupling is strongly constrained by myriad experimental measurements. However, certain theories possess a screening mechanism that allows the effects of this coupling to weaken dynamically, and to evade many such bounds. We compute the perturbations to the energy levels of hydrogenlike systems due to screened scalar fields. We then use this result in two ways. First, we compute bounds from hydrogen spectroscopy, finding significantly weaker bounds than have been reported before as screening effects were overlooked. Second, we show that muonium is an intrinsically much more sensitive probe of screened scalar fields. For chameleon models, muonium experiments probe a large part of the parameter space that is as yet unexplored by low-energy physics and has so far only been tested by high-energy particle physics experiments.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available