4.8 Article

Constraints on the Coupling between Axionlike Dark Matter and Photons Using an Antiproton Superconducting Tuned Detection Circuit in a Cryogenic Penning Trap

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS
卷 126, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.041301

关键词

-

资金

  1. RIKEN Chief Scientist Program
  2. RIKEN Pioneering Project
  3. Max-Planck Society
  4. Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft
  5. DFG [SFB 1227]
  6. European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program [832848, 852818]
  7. Max-Planck-RIKEN-PTB Center for Time, Constants and Fundamental Symmetries
  8. RIKEN JRA Program
  9. European Research Council (ERC) [832848, 852818] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study constrained the coupling between axionlike particles (ALPs) and photons using a superconducting resonant detection circuit, setting limits in a mass and coupling range not constrained by astrophysical observations. This approach has the potential to provide broad limits in the low ALP mass range and can be extended to other Penning-trap experiments.
We constrain the coupling between axionlike particles (ALPs) and photons, measured with the superconducting resonant detection circuit of a cryogenic Penning trap. By searching the noise spectrum of our fixed-frequency resonant circuit for peaks caused by dark matter ALPs converting into photons in the strong magnetic field of the Penning-trap magnet, we are able to constrain the coupling of ALPs with masses around 2.7906-2.7914 neV/c(2) to g(a gamma) < 1 x 10(-11) GeV-1. This is more than one order of magnitude lower than the best laboratory haloscope and approximately 5 times lower than the CERN axion solar telescope (CAST), setting limits in a mass and coupling range which is not constrained by astrophysical observations. Our approach can be extended to many other Penning-trap experiments and has the potential to provide broad limits in the low ALP mass range.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据