Quantum-enhanced screened dark energy detection

Christian K\"ading; Daniel Hartley; Ivette Fuentes; Richard Howl

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Quantum-enhanced screened dark energy detection

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A guided BEC interferometer could rule out the simplest chameleon dark energy model and shrink symmetron parameter space by up to 26 orders of magnitude.

desk verdict A genuinely interesting guided-BEC proposal whose chameleon headline is undercut by an unexamined BEC self-screening effect and an inconsistent QCRB formula. read the letter →

arxiv 1909.02272 v2 pith:6ORK4S7B submitted 2019-09-05 gr-qc astro-ph.COcond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph

Daniel Hartley , Christian Käding , Richard Howl , Ivette Fuentes This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.COcond-mat.quant-gasquant-ph

keywords Bose-EinsteincondensateinterferometerchameleonfieldsymmetronscreeningmechanismfifthforcedarkenergyquantumFisherinformationconformalcoupling

topics Dark Energy

open problems Dark Energy

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper proposes a tabletop experiment that would test two of the leading screening mechanisms proposed to hide a fifth force from modified-gravity scalar fields: the chameleon and the symmetron. The detector is a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) split into two clouds and held near a source mass inside a vacuum chamber; a fifth force would show up as a change in the phase difference between the two clouds. Using the quantum Cramér-Rao bound for a $10^6$-atom condensate with a 500 ms coherence time, the authors predict they could tighten existing constraints by up to three orders of magnitude for the $n=1$ chameleon, completely closing the remaining parameter space at the dark-energy scale $\Lambda = 2.4\,\mathrm{meV}$, and by 16 to 26 orders of magnitude in the coupling of the symmetron. If the predictions hold, a null result would rule out the simplest chameleon model as an explanation of dark energy and would massively shrink the allowed symmetron region.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the phase-shift formula $\theta(r)=mc^2T/(2\hbar)\left[r_s/r - 2\log A(\Phi(r))\right]$, which converts a scalar-field profile into a measurable interferometric phase difference. It is obtained from a covariant Bose-field Lagrangian by reducing the conformal metric to a position-dependent shift in the BEC chemical potential in the Gross-Pitaevskii equation. Two supporting mechanisms carry the quantitative predictions: the effective-potential picture $V_{\mathrm{eff}}(\Phi)=V(\Phi)+A(\Phi)\rho$, which sets how chameleon and symmetron masses depend on ambient density, and the quantum Cramér-Rao bound $(\Delta\kappa)^2 \ge 1/(N H(\kappa))$, which fixes the best possible sensitivity of a coherent $10^6$-atom BEC and turns a null phase measurement into excluded model parameters.

What would settle it

Compute the $n=1$ chameleon field profile inside the chamber with the BEC treated as a uniform-density region of roughly $10^{14}$ atoms/cm$^3$, using the density-dependent effective mass of Eq. (A2); if the resulting phase difference across the 100 $\mu$m BEC separation falls below the quantum-noise floor quoted in the paper, the predicted constraints fail. A simpler laboratory check is to repeat the proposed measurement with condensates of different densities and see whether the per-atom phase shift changes with BEC density.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central claim is that a guided BEC interferometer can measure the phase imprint of a conformally coupled scalar field with enough precision to exclude the remaining parameter space of the $n=1$ chameleon at the dark-energy scale $\Lambda=2.4\,\mathrm{meV}$ and to improve symmetron constraints by 16--26 orders of magnitude in $\lambda$. The phase shift is derived to lowest order as $\theta(r)=mc^2T/(2\hbar)\left[r_s/r - 2\log A(\Phi(r))\right]$, where $A(\Phi)$ is the conformal coupling; the scalar field's contribution is a modification of the gravitational redshift. The authors evaluate the quantum Fisher information for a $10^6$-atom BEC with a 500 ms coherence time, use the geometry of a 5 cm vacuum chamber and a 9.5 mm aluminium source sphere, and compare the resulting bounds with existing atom-interferometry and torsion-balance constraints. They conclude that an implementation would either discover the $n=1$ chameleon at the cosmological energy density or rule it out, and that any conformally coupled scalar model could be constrained in the same way.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dense BEC acts as a passive probe and does not perturb the scalar-field profile it is meant to measure; the paper argues this is harmless for the symmetron but leaves it unexamined for the chameleon, where a denser condensate would make the field heavier and flatten the very gradient the interferometer would detect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A null measurement would rule out the $n=1$ chameleon at the cosmological dark-energy scale $\Lambda=2.4\,\mathrm{meV}$, eliminating the simplest chameleon model as a dark-energy explanation.
The same experiment would improve constraints on $M_c$ for positive-$n$ chameleon models by more than two orders of magnitude and close the gap to torsion-balance constraints for $n\le 5$.
Symmetron parameter space would be excluded over 16 to 26 orders of magnitude in $\lambda$ across the accessible $M_s$ range, with $\mu_s$ between roughly $10^{-5.5}$ and $10^{-4}$ eV.
Because the phase imprint is generic to conformally coupled scalars, any such model—not just chameleons and symmetrons—can be constrained with the same interferometer.
Any implementation will either discover the $n=1$ chameleon at the cosmological energy density or rule it out, along with sharpening bounds on other screened scalar models.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Because the phase-shift formula is derived for a generic conformally coupled scalar, the same sensitivity analysis could be applied directly to galileon or dilaton models; the only new work would be computing their screened field profiles in the chamber.
The chameleon self-screening question could be settled before building anything: a numerical solution with the BEC treated as a high-density sphere would either confirm the passive-probe assumption or shrink the claimed excluded region.
The near-26-order symmetron improvement is dominated by the $\lambda$-coupling entering the phase at order $\lambda^{-1}$; if future constraints push $\lambda$ into the measured regime, the same apparatus becomes a direct measurement of $\lambda$ rather than an exclusion test.
A dual-species or dual-density BEC scheme could subtract common-mode noise and also serve as an in-situ check of whether the condensate back-reacts on the scalar field.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Colleague — here’s the read on 1909.02272. The genuinely new thing is the guided-BEC interferometer with 500 ms interrogation time applied to chameleon and symmetron fifth-force searches. The authors know the existing atom-interferometry bounds, reuse Hamilton et al.’s chamber geometry, and put real effort into the field profiles. The symmetron appendix is notably careful: it explicitly asks whether the BEC’s own density screens the field, and argues the symmetron Compton wavelength is long compared to the cloud width. That part of the paper is in good shape.

The problem is the chameleon half, which is also the headline. Eq. A2 says the chameleon mass grows with density. The BEC is ~1e8 times denser than the 6e-10 Torr vacuum, so for M_c/M_Pl ≲ 1e-10 the in-condensate Compton wavelength drops to microns, comparable to the cloud size. If that happens, each BEC arm sits at the high-density field minimum and the differential phase ζ2(r1)−ζ2(r0) is suppressed toward zero. The paper never runs this estimate for the chameleon; the symmetron screening paragraph is the only time the authors treat the BEC as a physical object. For the negatively sloped low-M_c branch of Fig. 2, the branch the paper claims to newly rule out, this is a load-bearing omission. The central claim that the n=1 chameleon is eliminated does not currently stand unless the backreaction is shown negligible.

The other concrete issue is the QCRB formula. Eq. (8) in the main text is the standard Var ≥ 1/(N H). Appendix C, Eq. (C1), writes (Δθ)^2 ≥ 1/sqrt(N H) and the constraint inequalities use that form. That extra square root changes the projected sensitivity by roughly two orders of magnitude for their N=1000, H=1e6 numbers. It looks like a typo, but as written it matters.

Lesser points: no code or data tables behind the figures, and technical noise is deferred. For a proposal this is not disqualifying, but it makes the plots hard to audit. The symmetron constraints, where the BEC self-screening is controlled, are more robust; the chameleon constraints need a fix.

Verdict: worth a serious referee, but only if the referee asks for a chameleon backreaction calculation and a corrected, consistent QCRB. If the authors can show the BEC is not self-screened across the claimed range, the paper is a solid proposal with real reach. As it stands, I’d tell the authors the headline overstates what the current analysis justifies.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a guided Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) interferometer as a laboratory probe for screened scalar fields, specifically the chameleon and symmetron models that can act as dark energy candidates. The authors derive the lowest-order phase shift induced by a conformally coupled scalar on a BEC (Appendix B), then use the quantum Cramer-Rao bound to forecast exclusion regions in the model parameter spaces under concrete experimental assumptions: 10^6 atoms, 500 ms integration, a 5 cm spherical vacuum chamber at 6e-10 Torr, an aluminium source sphere of radius 9.5 mm, and a 100 micron splitting. The headline claims are that the n=1 chameleon at the dark energy scale Lambda=2.4 meV would be ruled out, and that symmetron parameter space would shrink by 16 to 26 orders of magnitude in lambda. The paper is a sensitivity forecast rather than a measurement, and it explicitly leaves technical noise for future work.

Significance. If the forecast is correct, the proposal would be experimentally significant: it would close the gap between existing atom-interferometry and Eot-Wash constraints for chameleon models and dramatically shrink symmetron parameter space, potentially ruling out the simplest chameleon model as an explanation of dark energy. The paper is transparent about its assumptions, uses standard QFI tools, and Appendix B gives a careful first-principles derivation of the phase shift, which is a strength. The symmetron analysis in Appendix C also demonstrates awareness of the BEC's own density as a potential backreaction issue. The central claim, however, rests on the assumption that the BEC is a passive probe of the chameleon field profile, and the paper does not quantify the self-screening of the BEC for chameleons, even though Eq. (A2) shows the chameleon mass grows sharply with density. This is a load-bearing gap that must be addressed before the headline exclusion claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)

[Appendix C, Eq. (C1)] The quantum Cramer-Rao bound as written in Eq. (C1), (Delta theta_-)^2 >= 1/sqrt(N H(theta_-)), disagrees with the standard bound stated in Eq. (8), (Delta kappa)^2 >= 1/(N H(kappa)). The former implies Delta theta_- scales as (N H)^(-1/4), whereas the latter gives (N H)^(-1/2). Since Eqs. (C4), (C6), and (C7) all use the Eq. (C1) form to derive the constraint curves in Figs. 2-4, the displayed exclusion regions must be recalculated. If Eq. (C1) were taken literally, the forecast sensitivities would be substantially weaker than the standard QCRB; the authors should either correct the typo and confirm the figures used the correct expression, or state explicitly which form was used in the numerics.
[Appendix C, chameleon constraints and Fig. 2] The manuscript does not analyze the backreaction of the BEC on the chameleon field, although Appendix C explicitly considers this issue for the symmetron. Eq. (A2) gives m_c^2 = 2 Lambda^5 (rho/(2 M_c Lambda^5))^{3/2}, so the chameleon mass inside a BEC with density ~10^13-10^14 cm^-3 is orders of magnitude larger than in the surrounding vacuum at ~10^7 cm^-3. In the low-M_c branch of Fig. 2 (M_c/M_Pl < 10^-10), the in-condensate Compton wavelength becomes comparable to or smaller than a typical 5-10 micron BEC width, so each cloud would be self-screened and the field inside both arms would sit at the same high-density minimum. This would suppress the phase difference in Eq. (C2) relative to the vacuum profile, potentially removing the newly excluded region that is the centerpiece of the paper. The authors need either a quantitative estimate of the chameleon field profile inside and around the BEC for this parameter range, or a clear argument for why the BEC is optically thin to the chameleon field, before the headline claim can be considered supported.

minor comments (4)

[Appendix C, first paragraph of chameleon section] The sentence 'There are three major sections in the BEC interferometer constraints in Fig. 4' should refer to Fig. 2, since the three-section structure is discussed for the chameleon model whose constraints are shown in Fig. 2; Fig. 4 shows the symmetron constraints.
[Eq. (C2)] Eq. (C2) would be clearer if the quantities N and H were defined here explicitly as the number of measurements and the quantum Fisher information, respectively, or if the reader were referred to Eq. (8) and the definition H(theta_-)=N0 in the main text.
[Appendix C, Eq. (C5) and surrounding text] The notation m_infty -> hbar/R_vac in the text is informal; it would help to state explicitly that in the chamber-limited regime the effective mass is approximated by 1/R_vac in natural units, since the arrow notation may be confused with a limit taken.
[Main text, experimental parameters] The sentence about van der Waals and Casimir-Polder forces being 'not relevant at the 10 mm scale' is slightly at odds with the stated effective distance of 8.8 mm; it may be worth noting that the quoted distance already accounts for the relevant geometry.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the predicted constraints are a sensitivity forecast from external field profiles and standard QFI, with no fitted input renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that a proposed BEC interferometer would improve existing chameleon and symmetron constraints. The constraint curves in Figs. 2–4 are obtained by inserting externally known chameleon/symmetron field profiles (from Burrage–Sakstein and Elder et al.) into the phase-shift formula (C2) and applying the quantum Cramer–Rao bound (C1); no parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction. The ξ=0.55 'fudge factor' in Eq. (C5) is inherited from Elder et al. (2016), not fitted to the proposed experiment's target. Appendix B re-derives the phase shift from a covariant BEC Hamiltonian; although it cites [19,57,58], two of which are by overlapping authors, the derivation is self-contained and does not import a uniqueness theorem or ansatz that defines the target result. The main limitations are physical assumptions rather than circularity: the authors omit technical noise in the main text, and Appendix C checks BEC backreaction for the symmetron ('the Compton wavelength of the symmetron is far greater than the width of the BEC... whether or not the BEC is screened does not play a role') but gives no analogous chameleon backreaction estimate, leaving a correctness risk for the headline chameleon bound. Such risks do not reduce the derivation to its inputs by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim depends on a small set of experimental design parameters, all chosen by hand, and on standard model assumptions about chameleon and symmetron screening, plus a fudge factor for the chamber geometry. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

BEC atom number N0 = 10^6
Chosen as a representative condensate size; the projected constraints scale as 1/sqrt(N0).
Interrogation time T = 500 ms
Set by demonstrated mutual coherence times on atom chips; longer T improves sensitivity linearly in phase.
Chamber geometry (source radius, chamber radius, distance, split) = R=9.5 mm, L=5 cm, d=8.8 mm, split=100 um
Taken from the Hamilton et al. (2015) experiment for ease of comparison.
Chamber fudge factor xi = 0.55
From Elder et al. (2016), fitted to numerical solutions for a spherical chamber; used in Eq. (C5) to set the chameleon field value in the chamber-limited regime.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Conformal coupling and the specific chameleon and symmetron potentials (Eqs. 1-6) describe dark energy and fifth forces.
Standard model assumptions from the literature, not derived here.
domain assumption The BEC is described by a non-relativistic scalar field in the Bogoliubov approximation, and the lowest-order phase shift is the chemical potential shift (Appendix B).
Relies on the authors' previous work [19, 58] and standard BEC theory.
standard math The quantum Fisher information for estimating the phase with a fully condensed coherent BEC is H=N0.
Standard result for coherent states, citing [47].
domain assumption The chameleon and symmetron field profiles in the chamber are given by the approximate analytic expressions in Appendix C, including the chamber-limited solution with xi=0.55.
These profiles come from Burrage/Sakstein [12,20] and Elder et al. [61]; the accuracy of the matching conditions is assumed.
domain assumption Gravitational effects of the Earth and other environmental backgrounds can be eliminated by differential measurements.
Stated in the main text; no detailed subtraction scheme is developed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum-enhanced screened dark energy detection." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/6ORK4S7B

@misc{pith2026190902272,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum-enhanced screened dark energy detection},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/6ORK4S7B}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1909.02272}
}

read the original abstract

We propose an experiment based on a Bose-Einstein condensate interferometer for strongly constraining fifth-force models. Additional scalar fields from modified gravity or higher dimensional theories may account for dark energy and the accelerating expansion of the Universe. These theories have led to proposed screening mechanisms to fit within the tight experimental bounds on fifth-force searches. We show that our proposed experiment would greatly improve the existing constraints on these screening models by many orders of magnitude.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1909.02272 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2: Constraints for the parameter space of the chameleon model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** shows constraints for the value of Mc over different values of positive n chameleon models and for Λ = ΛDE = 2.4 meV. Our scheme would improve existing interferometry constraints by more than 2 orders of magnitude and close the gap to E¨ot-Wash for n ≤ 5. The predicted constraints on the parameter space of the symmetron model are shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4: Constraints for the parameter space of the symmetron model. The brown area [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: compares the chameleon effective potential Veff (in green) in high and low density environments for the n = 1 chameleon. The effective potential is given to lowest order by Veff (Φ) = Λ 4+n Φn + ρ 2Mc Φ + O Φ 2 M2 c . (A1) These first two components are plotted in …

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: Symmetron effective potential for high (blue) and low (orange) ordinary matter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Direct detection of solar chameleons with electron recoil data from XENONnT
hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

XENONnT electron-recoil data bound solar chameleons to log10 β_eff < −6.9, independent of the potential index n for inverse power-law chameleons at the dark-energy scale.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

64 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

4; the negatively sloped section where Mc/Mpl < 10−10, the vertical lines bounding the region on the large Mc side of the ﬁgure, and the positively sloped section between them

Chameleon constraints, Figures 2 and 3 in the main text There are three major sections in the BEC interferometer constraints in Fig. 4; the negatively sloped section where Mc/Mpl < 10−10, the vertical lines bounding the region on the large Mc side of the ﬁgure, and the positively sloped section between them. In the limit of an inﬁnitely wide vacuum chambe...

work page
[2]

⏐⏐⏐∂t ˆφ ⏐⏐⏐/c≪ ⏐⏐⏐∂i ˆφ ⏐⏐⏐ and

rs≪r, 3. ⏐⏐⏐∂t ˆφ ⏐⏐⏐/c≪ ⏐⏐⏐∂i ˆφ ⏐⏐⏐ and

work page
[3]

I. K. Wehus and F. Ravndal, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19, 4671 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0210292 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004
[4]

To lowest order in ζ2 and rs/r, the resulting Hamiltonian density is H = ℏ2 2m ∑ i ∂iφ†∂iφ +Veff ˆφ† ˆφ + 1 2λNR ˆφ† ˆφ† ˆφˆφ, (B6) where Veff =VNR + 1 2mc2 [ ζ2− rs ravg ]

ℏ2 ⏐⏐⏐∂i ˆφ†∂i ˆφ ⏐⏐⏐≪m2c2 ˆφ† ˆφ, 12 where i runs over spatial indices. To lowest order in ζ2 and rs/r, the resulting Hamiltonian density is H = ℏ2 2m ∑ i ∂iφ†∂iφ +Veff ˆφ† ˆφ + 1 2λNR ˆφ† ˆφ† ˆφˆφ, (B6) where Veff =VNR + 1 2mc2 [ ζ2− rs ravg ] . (B7) The potentials have been rescaled in the form VNR = V 2m, λNR = λ 2m (B8) as these are the form of the e...

work page
[5]

For the ﬁeld to evolve to its vacuum minimum within the chamber, the Compton wavelength 15 must be smaller than the vacuum chamber radius

Symmetron constraints, Figure 4 in the main text The value ofµs to which these constraints apply is limited by the geometry of the proposed experiment, as the Compton wavelength in low density regions is approximately 1 /µs. For the ﬁeld to evolve to its vacuum minimum within the chamber, the Compton wavelength 15 must be smaller than the vacuum chamber r...

work page
[6]

Brans and R

C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925 (1961)

1961
[7]

Fujii and K

Y. Fujii and K. Maeda, The scalar-tensor theory of gravitation , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

work page 2007
[8]

Perlmutter et al

S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133 [astro-ph]

arXiv 1999

Show all 64 references

[9]

A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro- ph/9805201 [astro-ph]

1998
[10]

Clifton, P

T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept. 513, 1 (2012), arXiv:1106.2476 [astro-ph.CO]

2012 arXiv
[11]

Joyce, B

A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury, and M. Trodden, Phys. Rept. 568, 1 (2015), arXiv:1407.0059 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[12]

J. O. Dickey, P. L. Bender, J. E. Faller, X. X. Newhall, R. L. Ricklefs, J. G. Ries, P. J. Shelus, C. Veillet, A. L. Whipple, J. R. Wiant, J. G. Williams, and C. F. Yoder, Science 265, 482 (1994)

1994
[13]

E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel, and A. E. Nelson, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. S. 53, 77 (2003)

2003
[14]

D. J. Kapner, T. S. Cook, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, B. R. Heckel, C. D. Hoyle, and H. E. Swanson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 021101 (2007)

2007
[15]

Ishak, Living Rev

M. Ishak, Living Rev. Rel. 22, 1 (2019), arXiv:1806.10122 [astro-ph.CO]

2019 arXiv
[16]

Burrage and J

C. Burrage and J. Sakstein, Living Rev. Rel. 21, 1 (2018), arXiv:1709.09071 [astro-ph.CO]

2018 arXiv
[17]

A. D. Ludlow, M. M. Boyd, J. Ye, E. Peik, and P. O. Schmidt, Rev. Mod. Phys. 87, 637 (2015)

2015
[18]

Schlippert, H

D. Schlippert, H. Albers, L. L. Richardson, D. Nath, H. Heine, C. Meiners, E. Wodey, A. Bil- 17 lon, J. Hartwig, C. Schubert, N. Gaaloul, W. Ertmer, and E. M. Rasel, Proceedings of the 50th Rencontres de Moriond ”Gravitation: 100 years after GR”, La Thuile (Italy) (2015)

2015
[19]

Overstreet, P

C. Overstreet, P. Asenbaum, T. Kovachy, R. Notermans, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 183604 (2018)

2018
[20]

Becker, M

D. Becker, M. D. Lachmann, S. T. Seidel, H. Ahlers, A. N. Dinkelaker, J. Grosse, O. Hellmig, H. M¨ untinga, V. Schkolnik, T. Wendrich, A. Wenzlawski, B. Weps, R. Corgier, T. Franz, N. Gaaloul, W. Herr, D. L¨ udtke, M. Popp, S. Amri, H. Duncker, M. Erbe, A. Kohfeldt, A. Kubelka...

2018
[21]

Burrage, E

C. Burrage, E. J. Copeland, and E. A. Hinds, JCAP 1503, 042 (2015), arXiv:1408.1409 [astro-ph.CO]

2015 arXiv
[22]

M. Jaﬀe, P. Haslinger, V. Xu, P. Hamilton, A. Upadhye, B. Elder, J. Khoury, and H. M¨ uller, Nature Physics 13, 938 (2017)

2017
[23]

Hartley, C

D. Hartley, C. K¨ ading, R. Howl, and I. Fuentes, Phys. Rev. D 99, 105002 (2019)

2019
[24]

Burrage and J

C. Burrage and J. Sakstein, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016, 045 (2016)

2016
[25]

Khoury and A

J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. D69, 044026 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0309411 [astro- ph]

2004 arXiv
[26]

Khoury and A

J. Khoury and A. Weltman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 171104 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0309300 [astro-ph]

2004 arXiv
[27]

Dehnen, H

H. Dehnen, H. Frommert, and F. Ghaboussi, International Journal of Theoretical Physics 31, 109 (1992)

1992
[28]

Gessner, Astrophysics and Space Science 196, 29 (1992)

E. Gessner, Astrophysics and Space Science 196, 29 (1992)

1992
[30]

Pietroni, Phys

M. Pietroni, Phys. Rev. D 72, 043535 (2005)

2005
[31]

K. A. Olive and M. Pospelov, Phys. Rev. D 77, 043524 (2008)

2008
[32]

P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.-C. Davis, and D. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D 82, 063519 (2010)

2010
[33]

Hinterbichler and J

K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 231301 (2010), arXiv:1001.4525 [hep- th]

2010 arXiv
[34]

Hinterbichler, J

K. Hinterbichler, J. Khoury, A. Levy, and A. Matas, Phys. Rev. D84, 103521 (2011), 18 arXiv:1107.2112 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[35]

Burrage, A

C. Burrage, A. Kuribayashi-Coleman, J. Stevenson, and B. Thrussell, JCAP 1612, 041 (2016), arXiv:1609.09275 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[36]

Y. Shin, M. Saba, T. A. Pasquini, W. Ketterle, D. E. Pritchard, and A. E. Leanhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 050405 (2004)

2004
[37]

J. E. Debs, P. A. Altin, T. H. Barter, D. D¨ oring, G. R. Dennis, G. McDonald, R. P. Anderson, J. D. Close, and N. P. Robins, Phys. Rev. A 84, 033610 (2011)

2011
[38]

Berrada, S

T. Berrada, S. van Frank, R. B¨ ucker, T. Schumm, J.-F. Schaﬀ, and J. Schmiedmayer, Nature Communications 4, 2077 (2013)

2013
[39]

M¨ untinga, H

H. M¨ untinga, H. Ahlers, M. Krutzik, A. Wenzlawski, S. Arnold, D. Becker, K. Bongs, H. Dit- tus, H. Duncker, N. Gaaloul, C. Gherasim, E. Giese, C. Grzeschik, T. W. H¨ ansch, O. Hellmig, W. Herr, S. Herrmann, E. Kajari, S. Kleinert, C. L¨ ammerzahl, W. Lewoczko-Adamczyk, J. Ma...

2013
[40]

G. D. McDonald, C. C. N. Kuhn, K. S. Hardman, S. Bennetts, P. J. Everitt, P. A. Altin, J. E. Debs, J. D. Close, and N. P. Robins, Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 013002 (2014)

2014
[41]

A. D. Cronin, J. Schmiedmayer, and D. E. Pritchard, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1051 (2009)

2009
[42]

Albiez, R

M. Albiez, R. Gati, J. F¨ olling, S. Hunsmann, M. Cristiani, and M. K. Oberthaler, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 010402 (2005)

2005
[43]

D. S. Naik, G. Kuyumjyan, D. Pandey, P. Bouyer, and A. Bertoldi, Quantum Science and Technology 3, 045009 (2018)

2018
[44]

Berrada, S

T. Berrada, S. van Frank, R. B¨ ucker, T. Schumm, J.-F. Schaﬀ, J. Schmiedmayer, B. Jul´ ıa-D´ ıaz, and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. A 93, 063620 (2016)

2016
[45]

S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3439 (1994)

1994
[46]

M. G. A. Paris, International Journal of Quantum Information 07, 125 (2009)

2009
[47]

ˇSafr´ anek and I

D. ˇSafr´ anek and I. Fuentes, Phys. Rev. A94, 062313 (2016)

2016
[48]

Monras, Phys

A. Monras, Phys. Rev. A 73, 033821 (2006)

2006
[49]

Pinel, P

O. Pinel, P. Jian, N. Treps, C. Fabre, and D. Braun, Physical Review A 88, 040102(R) (2013)

2013
[50]

ˇSafr´ anek, A

D. ˇSafr´ anek, A. R. Lee, and I. Fuentes, New Journal of Physics 17, 073016 (2015). 19

2015
[51]

Kok and B

P. Kok and B. W. Lovett, Introduction to optical quantum information processing (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

2010
[52]

K. M. R. van der Stam, E. D. van Ooijen, R. Meppelink, J. M. Vogels, and P. van der Straten, Review of Scientiﬁc Instruments 78, 013102 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2424439

2007 doi
[53]

D. G. Fried, T. C. Killian, L. Willmann, D. Landhuis, S. C. Moss, D. Kleppner, and T. J. Greytak, Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 3811 (1998)

1998
[54]

Greytak, D

T. Greytak, D. Kleppner, D. Fried, T. Killian, L. Willmann, D. Landhuis, and S. Moss, Physica B: Condensed Matter 280, 20 (2000)

2000
[55]

G.-B. Jo, Y. Shin, S. Will, T. A. Pasquini, M. Saba, W. Ketterle, D. E. Pritchard, M. Ven- galattore, and M. Prentiss, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98, 030407 (2007)

2007
[56]

S. Zhou, D. Groswasser, M. Keil, Y. Japha, and R. Folman, Phys. Rev. A 93, 063615 (2016)

2016
[57]

Hamilton, M

P. Hamilton, M. Jaﬀe, P. Haslinger, Q. Simmons, H. M¨ uller, and J. Khoury, Science 349, 849 (2015)

2015
[58]

G. R. Dvali, G. Gabadadze, and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B485, 208 (2000), arXiv:hep- th/0005016 [hep-th]

2000
[59]

Damour and A

T. Damour and A. M. Polyakov, Nucl. Phys. B423, 532 (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9401069 [hep- th]

1994 arXiv
[60]

P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.-C. Davis, B. Li, and D. J. Shaw, Phys. Rev. D83, 104026 (2011), arXiv:1102.3692 [astro-ph.CO]

2011 arXiv
[61]

Fagnocchi, S

S. Fagnocchi, S. Finazzi, S. Liberati, M. Kormos, and A. Trombettoni, New Journal of Physics 12, 095012 (2010)

2010
[62]

Hartley, T

D. Hartley, T. Bravo, D. R¨ atzel, R. Howl, and I. Fuentes, Phys. Rev. D 98, 025011 (2018)

2018
[63]

Pitaevskii and S

L. Pitaevskii and S. Stringari, Bose-Einstein Condensation (Oxford University Press, 2003)

2003
[64]

C. J. Pethick and H. Smith, Bose-Einstein Condensation in Diulte Gases (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2002)

2002
[65]

Elder, J

B. Elder, J. Khoury, P. Haslinger, M. Jaﬀe, H. Mller, and P. Hamilton, Phys. Rev. D94, 044051 (2016), arXiv:1603.06587 [astro-ph.CO]. 20

2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

4; the negatively sloped section where Mc/Mpl < 10−10, the vertical lines bounding the region on the large Mc side of the ﬁgure, and the positively sloped section between them

Chameleon constraints, Figures 2 and 3 in the main text There are three major sections in the BEC interferometer constraints in Fig. 4; the negatively sloped section where Mc/Mpl < 10−10, the vertical lines bounding the region on the large Mc side of the ﬁgure, and the positively sloped section between them. In the limit of an inﬁnitely wide vacuum chambe...

work page

[2] [2]

⏐⏐⏐∂t ˆφ ⏐⏐⏐/c≪ ⏐⏐⏐∂i ˆφ ⏐⏐⏐ and

rs≪r, 3. ⏐⏐⏐∂t ˆφ ⏐⏐⏐/c≪ ⏐⏐⏐∂i ˆφ ⏐⏐⏐ and

work page

[3] [3]

I. K. Wehus and F. Ravndal, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A19, 4671 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0210292 [hep-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2004

[4] [4]

To lowest order in ζ2 and rs/r, the resulting Hamiltonian density is H = ℏ2 2m ∑ i ∂iφ†∂iφ +Veff ˆφ† ˆφ + 1 2λNR ˆφ† ˆφ† ˆφˆφ, (B6) where Veff =VNR + 1 2mc2 [ ζ2− rs ravg ]

ℏ2 ⏐⏐⏐∂i ˆφ†∂i ˆφ ⏐⏐⏐≪m2c2 ˆφ† ˆφ, 12 where i runs over spatial indices. To lowest order in ζ2 and rs/r, the resulting Hamiltonian density is H = ℏ2 2m ∑ i ∂iφ†∂iφ +Veff ˆφ† ˆφ + 1 2λNR ˆφ† ˆφ† ˆφˆφ, (B6) where Veff =VNR + 1 2mc2 [ ζ2− rs ravg ] . (B7) The potentials have been rescaled in the form VNR = V 2m, λNR = λ 2m (B8) as these are the form of the e...

work page

[5] [5]

For the ﬁeld to evolve to its vacuum minimum within the chamber, the Compton wavelength 15 must be smaller than the vacuum chamber radius

Symmetron constraints, Figure 4 in the main text The value ofµs to which these constraints apply is limited by the geometry of the proposed experiment, as the Compton wavelength in low density regions is approximately 1 /µs. For the ﬁeld to evolve to its vacuum minimum within the chamber, the Compton wavelength 15 must be smaller than the vacuum chamber r...

work page

[6] [6]

Brans and R

C. Brans and R. H. Dicke, Phys. Rev. 124, 925 (1961)

1961

[7] [7]

Fujii and K

Y. Fujii and K. Maeda, The scalar-tensor theory of gravitation , Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2007)

work page 2007

[8] [8]

Perlmutter et al

S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133 [astro-ph]

arXiv 1999