Arxiv:2108.04746V1 [Gr-Qc] 10 Aug 2021

Constraints on scalar ﬁeld dark matter from twin co-located power-recycled Michelson interferometers

Lorenzo Aiello,1, ∗ Jonathan W. Richardson,2 Sander M. Vermeulen,1 Hartmut Grote,1 Craig Hogan,3, 4 Ohkyung Kwon,3, 5 and Chris Stoughton4 1Gravity Exploration Institute, Cardiff University, Cardiff CF24 3AA, United Kingdom 2California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA 3University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 4Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, Batavia, IL 5Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of Korea (Dated: August 11, 2021) The origin and the physical properties of dark matter remain unknown to date and their discovery is one of the most challenging topics in contemporary physics. One possible, prominent option is scalar field dark matter. In particular, low-mass (sub-eV) scalar field dark matter may induce apparent oscillations of fundamental constants, resulting in corresponding oscillations of the size and the index of refraction of solids. Laser interferometers are highly sensitive to changes in the size and index of refraction of the main beamsplitter. Using the data of the Fermilab Holometer instrument, which consists of twin co-located 40-m arm length power-recycled interferometers built to test quantum gravity theories, we investigate the possible existence of scalar field dark matter candidates in the mass range between 4.1·10−9 eV and 10−7 eV. We set new upper limits for the coupling parameters of scalar field dark matter, improving on limits from previous direct searches by up to one order of magnitude.

PACS numbers: 95.35.+d, 07.60.Ly, 42.55.-f

I. INTRODUCTION II. THEORY

Lasers are powerful tools for high-precision measure- In the basic scalar field DM scenario, models regarding ments. Experiments exploiting lasers are today ongoing weakly-coupled low-mass (mφ 1 eV) particles predict in a wide range of different fields in physics, including that such particles should manifest as a coherently oscil- gravitational waves detection [1], vacuum birefringence lating field, φ(t, ~r), of the form [9] research [2], searches for new particles [3] and searches φ(t, ~r) = φ cos(ω t − ~k · ~r) (1) for signatures of quantisation of spacetime [4]. Thanks 0 φ φ 2 to the developing technology, precision interferometers mφc ~ with ωφ = the angular Compton frequency, kφ = can reach excellent sensitivity to length variations at or ~ mφ~vobs the wave vector, mφ the mass of the field, ~vobs the beyond quantum limits nowadays, and they could also ~ be used in different contexts from the original ones they velocity relative to the observer. Assuming that the os- have been developed for. For example, some dark matter cillating DM field constitutes the local DM density√ρlocal, ~ 2ρlocal the amplitude of the field can be written as φ0 = (DM) candidates can couple to interferometric detectors, mφc that can be exploited then to detect DM candidates or, [11]. if no signal is detected, to set new constraints on the DM The velocity relative to the observer generates a parameters. Recent examples of this new type of DM Doppler-shift in the observed DM field frequency investigation involved the gravitational waves detectors: m ~v2 arXiv:2108.04746v1 [gr-qc] 10 Aug 2021 φ obs Advanced LIGO and Advanced VIRGO [5, 6] for dark ωobs = ωφ + (2) photon DM [7], and GEO 600 [8] for scalar field DM 2~ [9, 10]. with ~vobs being defined by part of a Maxwell-Boltzmann In this work, we performed a direct search for scalar distribution of velocities [12]. This Doppler-shift gen- field DM using the data of the Fermilab Holometer in- erates a spread in the observed frequency of the order ∆ωobs ∼ 10−6 [13], that is further modulated by the mo- strument. Its exquisite sensitivity in the 1-25 MHz fre- ωobs quency range allowed us to set new upper limits on the tion of the Earth with respect to the galactic DM halo. coupling parameters of scalar field DM in a different DM Besides the scalar field DM, other scalar models pre- mass range from the one already constrained by GEO dict some modifications in the expected field linewidth. 600 interferometer. Relaxion Halo DM [14] predicts that scalar particles may form gravitationally bounded objects and be captured in the gravitational potential of the Earth or Sun. This cap- ture results in a DM overdensity and in a field having a narrower linewidth [15] with respect to the basic scalar ∗ Correspondence email address: AielloL@cardiff.ac.uk model. 2

A. Coupling to the SM the adiabatic limit and f0 is the frequency of the fundamental longitudinal vibrational mode of the solid. The coupling of the coherently oscillating DM field φ The variation of the refractive index of the solid due with the Standard Model (SM) fields is parameterised by to the interaction with the DM field is given by [10] the addition of an interaction term in the SM Lagrangian [10, 16]. We will consider in this paper linear-in-φ inter- δn δα δm actions [8, 10] only ∼ −5 · 10−3 2 + e . (6) n α me µν lin φ Fµν F φ ¯ Lint = − meψeψe (3) Λγ 4 Λe A laser interferometer is extremely sensitive to differ-

µν ential variations in the optical path length of its arms. where Fµν F is the electromagnetic field tensor, me the ¯ The laser beam is split in the two arms with a dedicated electron rest mass, ψe, ψe the SM electron field and its optics, the beamsplitter, having the front side reflecting Dirac conjugate. Λγ and Λe parameterise the coupling of (typically 50%) and the back side anti-reflective coated. the DM field with the photons and the electrons, respec- Therefore, a change in the size and in the refractive index tively. Some scalar field DM models motivated by string of the beamsplitter generates a difference in the optical theory, such as the Modulus and Dilaton fields, couple to path length of the arms L and L given by [8] the QCD sector of the SM as well [17, 18]. x y As a result of this linear interaction, the electron rest mass m and the fine structure constant α are altered as √ 1 e δ(L − L ) ∼ 2 n − · δl + l · δn . (7) [9, 10, 16] x y 2 Since the DM field wavelength is much larger than the φ φ distance between the arm mirrors, i.e. λφ L in the me → me 1 + , α → α 1 + . (4) Λf Λγ whole frequency range of interest, and because the end mirrors have roughly the same thickness, the effect is almost equal in both arms and so no dominant signal is B. DM field search with laser interferometers produced. Therefore, the effect on the beamsplitter is the dominant one. The variation of α and me results in a change of some Recent work [8] investigated the possible presence of properties of solids, like their size l and their refrac- scalar field DM in the f f0 regime, where f0 is the tive index n [10]. The response of a solid to perturba- frequency of the fundamental vibrational mode of the tions associated with a particular driving frequency f can beamsplitter. GEO 600 gravitational wave detector data be treated within the model of a strongly-underdamped have been analysed, and new constraints in the 50-5500 (ζ 1) driven harmonic oscillator. The steady-response Hz frequency region have been set. to size change is given at the first-order by: For our analysis, we use the data from the Fermilab −1 Holometer experiment, that had been constructed with δl δα δm f 2 e the main goal of look for a possible quantisation of space = − − · 1 − (5) l α me f0 time in the 1-25 MHz range [4]. For the Holometer f0,BS ≈ 200 kHz [10], so in this case f f0 holds and where the first term represents the body size change in the signal is expected to be of the form

√ 2~ ρlocal δ(Lx − Ly) ∼ cos(ωobst) mφc   −1   −1   1 1 f 2 1 1 f 2  −2 −3 ·  n − · l · 1 − + 10 · n · l +  n − · l · 1 − + 5 · 10 · n · l . Λγ 2 f0 Λe 2 f0  (8) 3

III. DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS see Fig. 2 (bottom). Here it is assumed that a Relaxion Halo gravitationally bound to the Earth dominates the We performed the analysis on the entire Holometer local DM density, and leads to a local overdensity (that straight-arm configuration 704-hr dataset acquired be- depends on the field’s mass) that can reach values of up ρlocal 19 tween July 2015 and February 2016 [19, 20]. We expect to ρ ∼10 for the mass range constrained by our the DM signal to be present in both intereferometers. We analysis [15]. The coupling between the DM scalar field analysed the cross spectral density (CSD) data and then and the SM field is as in the Dilaton/Modulus scenario, converted the CSD data into amplitude spectra to iden- but these couplings arise through mixing with the Higgs tify possible DM candidates or to set new constraints boson [31]. if no candidate is identified. During the data run, the The electron and photon coupling parameters, i.e. Λe CSD were averaged every 1.835 s, and each frame spans and Λγ respectively, have been constrained for each sce- 1400 fast Fourier transform (FFT) time intervals. The nario as a function of the field’s mass mφ, assuming for discrete Fourier transform (DFT) length is 217 and the each coupling parameter the other to be zero. The new sample rate 50 MHz, resulting in a FFT time interval of constraints obtained from our analysis, together with pre- 1.311 ms. viously computed upper limits, are plotted in Fig. 2. Although the cross-spectral signal phase could be not We also analysed the bent-arm dataset [32]. These stable over long periods of time, the coherently averaged data do not significantly increase sensitivity to the DM data were analysed without loss of information, as ex- signal with respect to data presented in this paper. This plained in Appendix A. In the analysis we searched for is due to the fact that the bent arm is in transmission, relevant peaks with respect to the background noise. A cancelling then the effect of the change of the BS due to peak was considered a possible candidate when there was DM. less than 5% probability that it was due to noise. The Constraints on the coupling parameters in many dis- look-elsewhere effect was compensated with the applica- tinct mass ranges have been previously obtained with tion of a proper trial factor of the order ∼ 6 · 104. different types of experiments. These constraints are The performed analysis resulted in the identification of not depending on the local DM density, but depend on two possible candidates above the 95% confidence level, the composition and geometry of the test masses. Op- i.e. > 5.31σ, as shown in Figure 1. tical cavities [23] and atomic spectroscopy experiments These two peaks were subjected then to further anal- [22, 24], data from GW detectors like the resonant bar ysis to investigate if they were a true DM signal. The AURIGA [25] and the GEO600 interferometer [8] were conclusion of this further investigation was that both the used to set scalar field DM constraints. Finally, Equiva- identified relevant peaks in the amplitude spectrum were lence Principle tests exploiting torsion balances [28, 29] not due to scalar field DM but that they were both re- have been used to compute constraints on scalar fields lated to known sources. The first, at ∼13 MHz, was in- under the assumption it manifests as a Fifth Force and jected for calibration purposes of the readout system and it is sourced by a test mass [27, 33]. it was generated from an LED placed directly in front of the signal detectors. The second peak, at ∼ 20.5 MHz, was due to the phase lock of the lasers to the resonant IV. CONCLUSIONS interferometer cavities [21]. We then set new constraints on the DM parameters at In this paper we have shown the search for signals of 95% confidence level using Eq. 8, applying the results of scalar field DM in the f f0 regime using laser inter- our analysis to three different DM scenarios. ferometry. In the last years, this technique reached ex- The first one is the Basic Scalar, see Fig. 2 (top). In traordinary levels of sensitivity and it’s now exploited in this scenario the interaction between the scalar field DM a wide range of physical research fields and applications. and the SM fields is described by Eq. 3. The scalar GEO 600 interferometer data have been recently anal- field is set to be homogeneous in the solar system and, ysed to investigate the presence of possible scalar field according to the standard galactic DM halo model [11], DM signal in the f f0 regime [8]. For our work, we its density is equal to ρ=0.4 GeV/cm3. analysed the data of another very sensitive interferomet- The second analysed scenario is the Dilaton/Modulus, ric detector, the Fermilab Holometer. see Fig. 2 (middle). With respect to the previous sce- We excluded the presence of scalar field DM sig- nario, the Dilaton/Modulus is constrained by additional nal in the analysed data, setting new upper limits 12 limits coming from Equivalence Principle tests, but can on the DM coupling parameters at up to Λe=4.7·10 12 be equally constrained by our analysis and by other di- GeV and Λγ =2.5·10 GeV in the Basic Scalar and 21 rect researches as well. The density of the DM field is Dilaton/Modulus scenario, up to Λe=4.5·10 GeV and 21 assumed to be same as in the Basic Scalar model. In this Λγ =2.3·10 GeV in the Relaxion Halo scenario, for DM scenario, the DM field also couples with the QCD sector, masses between 4.1·10−9 eV and 10−7 eV. These new with the dominant coupling to be the one with the gluon upper limits improve the current constraints in the in- field [17, 29]. vestigated mass range by up to one order of magnitude. The last investigated scenario is the Relaxion Halo, Better constraints on scalar field DM can be set in fu- 4

FIG. 1. The amplitude spectrum (blue) obtained by the Holometer’s straight-arm coherently averaged data. From the noise spectrum the local noise median (cyan) was estimated. The 95% confidence level (red) have been then computed keeping in mind the Rayleigh distribution of the data. Peaks (green) above the 95% confidence level were considered possible DM candidates and then further investigated. ture through upgrades of the current experiments [24] or Appendix A: Cross spectra coherent average from new ones. In particular, a table-top version of the Holometer experiment is to be set up in the next years The phase difference ∆ϕ between two cross spectra is [34]. It will exploit high input power (∼ 10 W), squeezed given by states of light and output mode cleaners, with the ex- pectation to have a sensitivity better by up to one order 2πd ∆ϕ ≤ (A1) of magnitude, with respect to the Holometer, in a wider λDM frequency range, i.e. 1-250 MHz. This experiment will then have the possibility to further improve the current where d is the separation between the co-located inter- 1 −3 ferometers, and λDM = = ~ , with vϕ = 10 c constraints in a wider range of DM masses. kϕ mϕvϕ [13]. For the Holometer, d=1 m, and Equation A1 can be positive or negative according to the phase vector ori- entation of the two cross spectra. The coherent average of two cross spectra a t1 and t2 is given by F + F ACKNOWLEDGMENTS t1 t2 = A · cos(∆ϕ) (A2) |Ft1 | + |Ft2 | where A is the amplitude of DM signal provided by Equa- L.A. and S.M.V. thank Aldo Ejlli for useful discussions tion 8. In the range of interest for this work, cos(∆ϕ) ∼ 1 and comments on this work. We thank the Science and [35], indicating that phase change between different cross Technology Facilities council in the UK for support un- spectra is expected to be negligible. der grants ST/V00154X/1 and ST/T006331/1, and the Leverhulme Trust in the UK for support under grant RPG-2019-022. This work was supported by the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), a U.S. De- partment of Energy, Office of Science, HEP User Facility, managed by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC (FRA), act- ing under Contract No. DE-AC02-07CH11359. We are also grateful for support from the John Templeton Foun- dation. 5

FIG. 2. Computed constraints on the coupling parameters Λe (left) and Λγ (right) as a function of the field’s mass mφ for the scalar field DM as in the Basic Scalar scenario (top), the Dilaton/Modulus scenario (middle) and the Relaxion Halo scenario (bottom). Electron and photon coupling constraints are at 95% confidence level. The regions coloured in red indicates the parameter space for the coupling parameters excluded by our analysis of the Holometer data. Other coloured regions marks the parameter space excluded by other direct searches [22–24], including the GW detector AURIGA [25] and GEO 600 interferometer [8]. The grey regions denoted by the black curves are defined by previous constraints on general Fifth-Force tests of the Equivalence Principle [26]. These comes from the space-based MICROSCOPE experiment [27], and by the Cu/Pb and the Be/Ti torsion pendulum performed by the Eöt-Wash group [28–30]. For the Relaxion Halo scenario, a mass-dependent halo density as described in [15] has been assumed. The constraints obtained for this scenario from direct experimental searches have been obtained by rescaling the original ones to account this dependence. Constraints from Fith-Force and Equivalence Principle tests do not depend on the local DM density and so they are the same as in the Dilaton/Modulus scenario. 6

[1] B. P. Abbott et al., “Observation of gravitational waves “Sound of dark matter: Searching for light scalars from a binary black hole merger,” Phys. Rev. Lett., with resonant-mass detectors,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 116, p. 061102, Feb 2016. vol. 116, Jan 2016. [2] A. Ejlli, F. D. Valle, U. Gastaldi, G. Messineo, R. Pengo, [19] A. S. Chou, R. Gustafson, C. Hogan, B. Kamai, O. Kwon, G. Ruoso, and G. Zavattini, “The pvlas experiment: a 25 R. Lanza, L. McCuller, S. S. Meyer, J. Richardson, year effort to measure vacuum magnetic birefringence,” C. Stoughton, and et al., “First measurements of high 2020. frequency cross-spectra from a pair of large michelson [3] M. D. Ortiz, J. Gleason, H. Grote, A. Hallal, M. T. interferometers,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 117, Sep Hartman, H. Hollis, K. S. Isleif, A. James, K. Karan, 2016. T. Kozlowski, A. Lindner, G. Messineo, G. Mueller, J. H. [20] A. Chou, H. Glass, H. Richard Gustafson, C. J. Hogan, Poeld, R. C. G. Smith, A. D. Spector, D. B. Tanner, B. L. Kamai, O. Kwon, R. Lanza, L. McCuller, S. S. L. W. Wei, and B. Willke, “Design of the alps ii optical Meyer, J. W. Richardson, and et al., “Interferomet- system,” 2021. ric constraints on quantum geometrical shear noise cor- [4] A. Chou, H. Glass, H. R. Gustafson, C. Hogan, B. L. relations,” Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 34, Kamai, O. Kwon, R. Lanza, L. McCuller, S. S. Meyer, p. 165005, Jul 2017. J. Richardson, and et al., “The holometer: an instru- [21] J. G. C. Martinez and B. Kamai, “Searching for mhz ment to probe planckian quantum geometry,” Classical gravitational waves from harmonic sources,” Classical and Quantum Gravity, vol. 34, p. 065005, Feb 2017. and Quantum Gravity, vol. 37, p. 205006, Sep 2020. [5] H.-K. Guo, K. Riles, F.-W. Yang, and Y. Zhao, “Search- [22] S. Aharony, N. Akerman, R. Ozeri, G. Perez, I. Savoray, ing for dark photon dark matter in ligo o1 data,” Com- and R. Shaniv, “Constraining rapidly oscillating scalar munications Physics, vol. 2, Dec 2019. dark matter using dynamic decoupling,” Physical Review [6] R. Abbott et al., “Constraints on dark photon dark mat- D, vol. 103, Apr 2021. ter using data from ligo’s and virgo’s third observing [23] E. Savalle, A. Hees, F. Frank, E. Cantin, P.-E. Pottie, run,” 2021. B. M. Roberts, L. Cros, B. T. McAllister, and P. Wolf, [7] A. Pierce, K. Riles, and Y. Zhao, “Searching for dark “Searching for dark matter with an optical cavity and an photon dark matter with gravitational-wave detectors,” unequal-delay interferometer,” Physical Review Letters, Physical Review Letters, vol. 121, Aug 2018. vol. 126, Feb 2021. [8] S. M. Vermeulen, P. Relton, H. Grote, V. Raymond, [24] D. Antypas, O. Tretiak, A. Garcon, R. Ozeri, G. Perez, C. Affeldt, F. Bergamin, A. Bisht, M. Brinkmann, and D. Budker, “Scalar dark matter in the radio- K. Danzmann, S. Doravari, V. Kringel, J. Lough, frequency band: Atomic-spectroscopy search results,” H. Lück, M. Mehmet, N. Mukund, S. Nadji, E. Schreiber, Physical Review Letters, vol. 123, Oct 2019. B. Sorazu, K. A. Strain, H. Vahlbruch, M. Weinert, and [25] A. Branca, M. Bonaldi, M. Cerdonio, L. Conti, P. Falferi, B. Willke, “Direct limits for scalar field dark matter from F. Marin, R. Mezzena, A. Ortolan, G. A. Prodi, L. Taf- a gravitational-wave detector,” 2021. farello, and et al., “Search for an ultralight scalar dark [9] Y. Stadnik and V. Flambaum, “Can dark matter induce matter candidate with the auriga detector,” Physical Re- cosmological evolution of the fundamental constants of view Letters, vol. 118, Jan 2017. nature?,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 115, Nov 2015. [26] N. Leefer, A. Gerhardus, D. Budker, V. Flambaum, and [10] H. Grote and Y. V. Stadnik, “Novel signatures of dark Y. Stadnik, “Search for the effect of massive bodies matter in laser-interferometric gravitational-wave detec- on atomic spectra and constraints on yukawa-type in- tors,” Physical Review Research, vol. 1, Dec 2019. teractions of scalar particles,” Physical Review Letters, [11] J. I. Read, “The local dark matter density,” Journal vol. 117, Dec 2016. of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, vol. 41, [27] J. Bergé, P. Brax, G. Métris, M. Pernot-Borràs, p. 063101, May 2014. P. Touboul, and J.-P. Uzan, “Microscope mission: First [12] This is due to the fact that the DM is virialised in the constraints on the violation of the weak equivalence prin- galactic gravity potential. ciple by a light scalar dilaton,” Physical Review Letters, [13] A. Derevianko, “Detecting dark-matter waves with a net- vol. 120, Apr 2018. work of precision-measurement tools,” Physical Review [28] G. L. Smith, C. D. Hoyle, J. H. Gundlach, E. G. Adel- A, vol. 97, Apr 2018. berger, B. R. Heckel, and H. E. Swanson, “Short-range [14] A. Banerjee, H. Kim, and G. Perez, “Coherent relaxion tests of the equivalence principle,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 61, dark matter,” Physical Review D, vol. 100, Dec 2019. p. 022001, Dec 1999. [15] A. Banerjee, D. Budker, J. Eby, H. Kim, and G. Perez, [29] T. A. Wagner, S. Schlamminger, J. H. Gundlach, and “Relaxion stars and their detection via atomic physics,” E. G. Adelberger, “Torsion-balance tests of the weak Communications Physics, vol. 3, Jan 2020. equivalence principle,” Classical and Quantum Gravity, [16] Y. Stadnik and V. Flambaum, “Searching for dark matter vol. 29, p. 184002, Aug 2012. and variation of fundamental constants with laser and [30] S. Schlamminger, K.-Y. Choi, T. A. Wagner, J. H. Gund- maser interferometry,” Physical Review Letters, vol. 114, lach, and E. G. Adelberger, “Test of the equivalence prin- Apr 2015. ciple using a rotating torsion balance,” Physical Review [17] T. Damour and A. Polyakov, “The string dilation and Letters, vol. 100, Jan 2008. a least coupling principle,” Nuclear Physics B, vol. 423, [31] T. Flacke, C. Frugiuele, E. Fuchs, R. S. Gupta, and p. 532–558, Jul 1994. G. Perez, “Phenomenology of relaxion-higgs mixing,” [18] A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, and K. Van Tilburg, Journal of High Energy Physics, vol. 2017, Jun 2017. 7

[32] J. W. Richardson, O. Kwon, H. R. Gustafson, C. Hogan, [34] S. M. Vermeulen, L. Aiello, A. Ejlli, W. L. Griﬃths, A. L. B. L. Kamai, L. P. McCuller, S. S. Meyer, C. Stoughton, James, K. L. Dooley, and H. Grote, “An experiment for R. E. Tomlin, and R. Weiss, “Interferometric constraints observing quantum gravity phenomena using twin table- on spacelike coherent rotational ﬂuctuations,” Physical top 3d interferometers,” Classical and Quantum Gravity, Review Letters, vol. 126, Jun 2021. vol. 38, p. 085008, Mar 2021. [33] A. Hees, O. Minazzoli, E. Savalle, Y. V. Stadnik, and [35] Variation from unity are expected to be at most of the P. Wolf, “Violation of the equivalence principle from light order of 10−6 in the range of interest. scalar dark matter,” Physical Review D, vol. 98, Sep 2018.