- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Letter
  • Open Access

Improved sensitivity of interferometric gravitational-wave detectors to ultralight vector dark matter from the finite light-traveling time

Soichiro Morisaki1, Tomohiro Fujita2, Yuta Michimura3, Hiromasa Nakatsuka2, and Ippei Obata4

  • 1Department of Physics, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201, USA
  • 2Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Chiba 277-8582, Japan
  • 3Department of Physics, University of Tokyo, Bunkyo, Tokyo 113-0033, Japan
  • 4Max-Planck-Institut für Astrophysik, Karl-Schwarzschild-Strasse 1, 85741 Garching, Germany

PDF

Phys. Rev. D 103, L051702 – Published 18 March, 2021

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.L051702

Abstract

Recently, several studies have pointed out that gravitational-wave detectors are sensitive to ultralight vector dark matter and can improve the current best constraints given by the equivalence principle tests. While a gravitational-wave detector is a highly precise measuring tool for the length difference of its arms, its sensitivity is limited because the displacements of its test mass mirrors caused by vector dark matter are almost common. In this paper, we point out that the sensitivity is significantly improved if the effect of finite light-traveling time in the detector’s arms is taken into account. This effect enables advanced LIGO to improve the constraints on the U(1)B−L gauge coupling by an order of magnitude compared with the current best constraints. It also makes the sensitivities of the future gravitational-wave detectors overwhelmingly better than the current ones. The factor by which the constraints are improved due to the new effect depends on the mass of the vector dark matter, and the maximum improvement factors are 470, 880, 1600, 180, and 1400 for advanced LIGO, Einstein Telescope, Cosmic Explorer, DECIGO, and LISA, respectively. Including the new effect, we update the constraints given by the first observing run of advanced LIGO and improve the constraints on the U(1)B gauge coupling by an order of magnitude compared with the current best constraints.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (50)

  1. E. Aprile et al. (XENON Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 111302 (2018).
  2. M. Ackermann et al. (Fermi-LAT Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 231301 (2015).
  3. A. M. Sirunyan et al. (CMS Collaboration), J. High Energy Phys. 07 (2017) 014.
  4. M. Aaboud et al. (ATLAS Collaboration), Phys. Rev. D 94, 032005 (2016).
  5. W. Hu, R. Barkana, and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158 (2000).
  6. A. Khmelnitsky and V. Rubakov, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 02 (2014) 019.
  7. N. K. Porayko and K. A. Postnov, Phys. Rev. D 90, 062008 (2014).
  8. N. K. Porayko et al., Phys. Rev. D 98, 102002 (2018).
  9. K. Nomura, A. Ito, and J. Soda, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 419 (2020).
  10. A. Arvanitaki, J. Huang, and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. D 91, 015015 (2015).
  11. A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 031102 (2016).
  12. A. Branca et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 021302 (2017).
  13. P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran, and W. A. Terrano, Phys. Rev. D 93, 075029 (2016).
  14. D. Blas, D. L. Nacir, and S. Sibiryakov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 261102 (2017).
  15. A. Arvanitaki, P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, S. Rajendran, and K. Van Tilburg, Phys. Rev. D 97, 075020 (2018).
  16. A. A. Geraci, C. Bradley, D. Gao, J. Weinstein, and A. Derevianko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 031304 (2019).
  17. A. Hees, J. Guéna, M. Abgrall, S. Bize, and P. Wolf, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 061301 (2016).
  18. Y. V. Stadnik and V. V. Flambaum, Phys. Rev. A 93, 063630 (2016).
  19. A. Aoki and J. Soda, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 26, 1750063 (2017).
  20. S. Morisaki and T. Suyama, Phys. Rev. D 100, 123512 (2019).
  21. W. DeRocco and A. Hook, Phys. Rev. D 98, 035021 (2018).
  22. I. Obata, T. Fujita, and Y. Michimura, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161301 (2018).
  23. H. Liu, B. D. Elwood, M. Evans, and J. Thaler, Phys. Rev. D 100, 023548 (2019).
  24. K. Nagano, T. Fujita, Y. Michimura, and I. Obata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 111301 (2019).
  25. D. Martynov and H. Miao, Phys. Rev. D 101, 095034 (2020).
  26. Y. Michimura, T. Fujita, S. Morisaki, H. Nakatsuka, and I. Obata, Phys. Rev. D 102, 102001 (2020).
  27. A. Pierce, K. Riles, and Y. Zhao, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 061102 (2018).
  28. H.-K. Guo, K. Riles, F.-W. Yang, and Y. Zhao, Commun. Phys. 2, 155 (2019).
  29. H. Grote and Y. Stadnik, Phys. Rev. Research 1, 033187 (2019).
  30. J. C. Bustillo, N. Sanchis-Gual, A. Torres-Forné, J. A. Font, A. Vajpeyi, R. Smith, C. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and S. H. Leong, arXiv:2009.05376 (Phys. Rev. Lett. (to be published)].
  31. T. Fujita, R. Tazaki, and K. Toma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 122, 191101 (2019).
  32. A. Caputo, L. Sberna, M. Frias, D. Blas, P. Pani, L. Shao, and W. Yan, Phys. Rev. D 100, 063515 (2019).
  33. M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D 100, 015040 (2019).
  34. S. Schlamminger, K.-Y. Choi, T. Wagner, J. Gundlach, and E. Adelberger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 041101 (2008).
  35. T. Wagner, S. Schlamminger, J. Gundlach, and E. Adelberger, Classical Quantum Gravity 29, 184002 (2012).
  36. P. Touboul et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 231101 (2017).
  37. J. Berg, P. Brax, G. Mtris, M. Pernot-Borrs, P. Touboul, and J.-P. Uzan, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 141101 (2018).
  38. G. M. Harry (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Classical Quantum Gravity 27, 084006 (2010).
  39. A. L. Miller et al., arXiv:2010.01925.
  40. S. Hild et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 28, 094013 (2011).
  41. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), Classical Quantum Gravity 34, 044001 (2017).
  42. S. Kawamura et al., Classical Quantum Gravity 23, S125 (2006).
  43. P. Amaro-Seoane et al. (LISA Collaboration), arXiv:1702.00786.
  44. L. Barsotti, P. Fritschel, M. Evans, and S. Gras, LIGO Report No. T1800044-v4, 2018, https://dcc.ligo.org/LIGO-T1800044/public.
  45. R. Essick, S. Vitale, and M. Evans, Phys. Rev. D 96, 084004 (2017).
  46. S. Kawamura et al., arXiv:2006.13545.
  47. M. C. Smith et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 379, 755 (2007).
  48. P. Fayet, Phys. Rev. D 97, 055039 (2018).
  49. B. Allen and J. D. Romano, Phys. Rev. D 59, 102001 (1999).
  50. S. L. Larson, W. A. Hiscock, and R. W. Hellings, Phys. Rev. D 62, 062001 (2000).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 103, L051702– Published 18 March, 2021
  • Received 18 November 2020
  • Accepted 16 February 2021
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by SCOAP3.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation