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
  • Open Access

Scalar-magnetometer search for ultralight dark photon dark matter with a single-site, two-sensor array: A 6-channel discrete-time Fourier transform likelihood analysis with scalar optically pumped magnetometers

Peisen Zhao1,*, Ole Behrens1, Maja Benning1, Peter Fierlinger1, Xuefen Han1,2, Maximilian Huber1, Florian Kuchler1, Yevgeny V. Stadnik3, and Philipp Wunderl1

  • *Contact author: ge47zis@mytum.de

Phys. Rev. D 112, 112016 – Published 19 December, 2025

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/kwyg-5v64

Abstract

We report a laboratory search for ultralight dark photon dark matter using a single-site, two-sensor array of commercial scalar optically pumped magnetometers. In the low-frequency regime where the Earth–ionosphere system acts as an electromagnetic transducer, the expected magnetic signal is a narrow-band triplet of frequencies. This signature consists of a central peak at the dark photon’s Compton frequency, accompanied by two sidebands shifted by Earth’s sidereal rotation frequency. Because scalar magnetometers measure field magnitude, the observable signal is the projection of the oscillating dark photon magnetic field onto the direction of the large, local geomagnetic field. This preserves the crucial triplet signature in the resulting time series data. Analyzing 10.5 h of continuous data, we construct a six-channel complex data vector by evaluating the discrete-time Fourier transform for both sensors directly at the three physical frequencies of the signal triplet. Assuming complex-Gaussian noise, we develop a likelihood framework to set robust, frequency-resolved upper limits on the kinetic-mixing parameter ϵ, which governs the coupling between Standard Model photons and dark photons. Within the mass range 4×10−15  eV≲mA′≲3×10−14  eV, we obtain the most stringent direct laboratory limits to date on the kinetic-mixing parameter, which are complementary to existing astrophysical bounds, including those inferred from observations of the Leo T dwarf galaxy.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (30)

  1. G. Bertone and D. Hooper, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 045002 (2018).
  2. F. Zwicky, Helv. Phys. Acta 6, 110 (1933).
  3. V. C. Rubin, N. Thonnard, and W. K. Ford, Jr., Astrophys. J. 238, 471 (1980).
  4. P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan, J. Mardon, S. Rajendran, and W. A. Terrano, Phys. Rev. D 93, 075029 (2016).
  5. I. G. Irastorza and J. Redondo, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 102, 89 (2018).
  6. D. Antypas et al. (Cosmic Frontier Snowmass Community), arXiv:2203.14915.
  7. L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker, S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043541 (2017).
  8. L. B. Okun, Sov. Phys. JETP 56, 502 (1982) [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 83, 892 (1982)].
  9. B. Holdom, Phys. Lett. 166B, 196 (1986).
  10. M. Pospelov, A. Ritz, and M. B. Voloshin, Phys. Rev. D 78, 115012 (2008).
  11. M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, D. F. Jackson Kimball, and S. Kalia, Phys. Rev. D 104, 075023 (2021).
  12. M. A. Fedderke, P. W. Graham, D. F. Jackson Kimball, and S. Kalia, Phys. Rev. D 104, 095032 (2021).
  13. I. A. Sulai et al., Phys. Rev. D 108, 096026 (2023).
  14. M. Jiang, T. Hong, D. Hu, Y. Chen, F. Yang, T. Hu, X. Yang, J. Shu, Y. Zhao, X. Peng, and J. Du, Nat. Commun. 15, 3331 (2024).
  15. Twinleaf LLC, PPM Pulsed Pump Magnetometer, https://twinleaf.com/magnetometers/PPM/ (2025).
  16. M. Limes, E. Foley, T. Kornack, S. Caliga, S. McBride, A. Braun, W. Lee, V. Lucivero, and M. Romalis, Phys. Rev. Appl. 14, 011002 (2020).
  17. W. E. Bell and A. L. Bloom, Phys. Rev. Lett. 6, 280 (1961).
  18. P. Alken et al., Earth Planets Space 73, 49 (2021).
  19. L. R. Rabiner, R. W. Schafer, and C. M. Rader, IEEE Trans. Audio Electroacoust. 17, 86 (1969).
  20. G. P. Centers, J. W. Blanchard, J. Conrad, N. L. Figueroa, A. Garcon, A. V. Gramolin, D. F. Jackson Kimball, M. Lawson, B. Pelssers, J. A. Smiga, A. O. Sushkov, A. Wickenbrock, D. Budker, and A. Derevianko, Nat. Commun. 12, 7321 (2021).
  21. K. Nomura, A. Nishizawa, A. Taruya, and Y. Himemoto, arXiv:2509.15783.
  22. A. Caputo, A. J. Millar, C. A. J. O’Hare, and E. Vitagliano, Phys. Rev. D 104, 095029 (2021).
  23. J. S. Bolton, A. Caputo, H. Liu, and M. Viel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 211102 (2022).
  24. A. Trost, J. S. Bolton, A. Caputo, H. Liu, S. Cristiani, and M. Viel, Phys. Rev. D 111, 083034 (2025).
  25. S. D. McDermott and S. J. Witte, Phys. Rev. D 101, 063030 (2020).
  26. M. Friel, J. W. Gjerloev, S. Kalia, and A. Zamora, Phys. Rev. D 110, 115036 (2024).
  27. G. Arsenadze, A. Caputo, X. Gan, H. Liu, and J. T. Ruderman, J. High Energy Phys. 03 (2025) 018.
  28. D. Wadekar and G. R. Farrar, Phys. Rev. D 103, 123028 (2021).
  29. S. M. Kay, Fundamentals of Statistical Signal Processing, Volume II: Detection Theory (Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1998).
  30. W. Lee, V. G. Lucivero, M. V. Romalis, M. E. Limes, E. L. Foley, and T. W. Kornack, Phys. Rev. A 103, 063103 (2021).

Outline

Information

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation