Abstract
Searches for pseudomagnetic spin couplings require implementation of techniques capable of sensitive detection of such interactions. While SpinExchange Relaxation Free (SERF) magnetometry is one of the most powerful approaches enabling the searches, it suffers from a strong magnetic coupling, deteriorating the pseudomagnetic coupling sensitivity. To address this problem, here, we compare, via numerical simulations, the performance of SERF magnetometer and noblegasalkalimetal comagnetometer, operating in a socalled selfcompensating regime. We demonstrate that the comagnetometer allows reduction of the sensitivity to lowfrequency magnetic fields without loss of the sensitivity to nonmagnetic couplings. Based on that we investigate the responses of both systems to the oscillating and transient spin perturbations. Our simulations reveal about five orders of magnitude stronger response to the neutron pseudomagnetic coupling and about three orders of magnitude stronger response to the proton pseudomagnetic coupling of the comagnetometer than those of the SERF magnetometer. Different frequency responses of the comagnetometer to magnetic and nonmagnetic perturbations enables differentiation between these two types of interactions. This outlines the ability to implement the comagnetometer as an advanced sensor for the Global Network of Optical Magnetometer for Exotic Physics searches (GNOME), aiming at detection of ultralight bosons (e.g., axionlike particles).
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
In optically pumped magnetometers (OPMs), measurements of external magnetic fields rely on detection of energylevel shifts/spin precession arising from Zeeman interaction^{1}. However, if nonmagnetic interactions similarly affect the energy levels, OPMs can also be used to detect those interactions. This enables the application of optical magnetometry to searches for anomalous spindependent interactions.
Currently, OPMs are used to search for physics beyond the Standard Model in a variety of experiments (see, Ref.^{2} and references therein). A particular example of such OPMs application is the search for microscopicrange spindependent interactions, indicating a possibility of existence of axionlike particles (ALPs), which are one of prime candidates for the dark matter^{2}. OPMs are also used to search for transient nonmagnetic spin couplings, which could arise due to interaction with macroscopic objects made of ALPs, in particular, Qballs^{3}, topological defects (e.g., domain walls) of ALP field^{4}, or ALPfield pulses generated in cataclysmic astrophysical events (e.g., blackhole mergers)^{5}. These transient couplings are targeted by the Global Network of Optical Magnetometers for Exotic physics searches (GNOME)^{6,7,8}. Heretofore, the GNOME consists of various OPMs, originally developed for ultrasensitive magnetometry in globally distributed locations. This leads to several challenges when searching the data for global transient signals. First, due to a different nuclearspin content of atoms used in specific sensors, they are characterised with different sensitivity to exotic spin couplings^{9} (coupling to protons and neutrons could be, in general, different). Second, the implemented OPMs are characterised with different bandwidths, sensitivities, and local noise floors, which complicates data analysis^{10}. Third, the magnetometers were designed to maximise the sensitivity to magnetic fields. Uncontrolled and uncompensated magneticfield perturbations are detrimental to the sensitivity to other couplings. These issues triggered work to upgrade conventional OPMs in the GNOME with a sensor less sensitive to magnetic fields but highly sensitive to nonmagnetic spin couplings.
A specific example of a sensor, being predominantly sensitive to nonmagnetic spin couplings, hence well suited for searches for physics beyond the Standard Model, is an alkalimetalnoblegas comagnetometer originally developed by Romalis and coworkers^{11,12,13} and later studied extensively by other researchers^{14,15,16,17,18}. Such a system operates based on coupled evolution of the magnetizations of noble gas (NG) and alkalimetal (AM) vapour. Both can achieve a high percentage of polarisation as AM can be optically pumped, whereas polarisation of the NG can be generated via spinexchange collisions with the optically polarised AM^{19}. In the comagnetometer, the vapour cell is heated above 150\(^\circ\)C to achieve a sufficiently high AM density, such that relaxation due to spinexchange collisions, which is one of the main mechanisms of AM polarisation relaxation and hence one of a limiting factor to spincoupling sensitivity, is suppressed. This is the socalled SpinExchange Relaxation Free (SERF) regime^{20}. Furthermore, for the alkalimetalnoblegas comagnetometer the effect of lowfrequency magnetic drifts can be suppressed by application of a carefully chosen bias magnetic field. If the bias field is approximately equal to the sum of AM and NG magnetization fields, the system retains high sensitivity to both electron and nuclear nonmagnetic spin couplings, but becomes insensitive to lowfrequency magneticfield changes. Such selfcompensating comagnetometers have already been used for tests of the Lorentz symmetry^{21,22,23}, setting limit on the neutron coupling to light pseudoscalar particles^{24}, and spinmass interaction of fermions^{25}. In all of those applications, however, the signals of interests had low frequencies (typically below a few Hz), for which the response to magnetic fields is almost entirely suppressed and the system is only sensitive to nonmagnetic spin couplings. Since the GNOME targets transient signals, a question of the comagnetometer’s applicability to such searches is important and well motivated. Additional interest in comagnetometer systems, in the context of searches for transient effects, arises from the possibility for quantitative distinguishing between magnetic and nonmagnetic transients. This was originally considered for precise rotation sensing with NGAM comagnetometers^{12} but can be extended for other scenarios.
In this work, we analyse the alkalimetalnoblegas comagnetometer in the context of its response to timedependent electron and nuclear spin perturbations, and we compare the results with the response of the AM SERF magnetometer. Our theoretical analysis is based on numerical solution of differential equations describing the coupled evolution of the AM and NG. We use Ordinary Differential Equations (ODE) to simulate the response of atoms to spin perturbations in the absence of noise and we provide analytical models, which reproduce numerical results. The discussions concern the responses of both, SERF magnetometer and comagnetometer, to magnetic fields and pseudomagnetic spin perturbations, where in the latter case we independently consider the effects of electron, proton, and neutron spin perturbations. These allow us to determine the frequency and phase responses of both devices. Finally, we compare the response of the comagnetometer and SERF magnetometer to transient effects of both magnetic and nonmagnetic nature. We show that differences between the comagnetometer frequency responses for different spin perturbations allows identification of nonmagnetic transient effects even with a single sensor. These additional signatures of the nonmagnetic transient effects can be utilised to decrease the falsepositive event rate in searches with the GNOME network.
Methods
Numerical models
In this section, we describe the theoretical models used to simulate the response of the SERF magnetometers and comagnetometers to magnetic and nonmagnetic spin perturbations.
SERF magnetometer model
In a conventional SERF magnetometer, a spinzero NG can be used as a buffer gas. The buffer gas limits diffusion of the atoms towards the cell walls (the AM atoms are depolarised in wall collisions), which increases the polarisation lifetime but, it does not produce any magnetisation. Thereby, to simulate a response of such a magnetometer to a spin perturbation, we implement an approach based on the solutions of the Bloch equation^{26} with inclusion of nonmagnetic spin couplings (for more details see Additional information). The equation describing the AM polarisation \({\mathbf {P}}\) of atoms subjected to an external magnetic field \({\mathbf {B}}\) and circularly polarised light can be written as
where \(\gamma _e\) is the electron gyromagnetic ratio, \({\mathbf {s}}\) is the optical pumping vector, \(R_p\) is the pumping rate, \(R_c^e\) is the polarisationrelaxation rate, q is the slowingdown factor, which is a function of the nuclear spin of the AM and its polarisation \(\mathrm {P}\). The vectors \(\mathbf {b_e}\) and \(\mathbf {b_N^{AM}}\) are the nonmagnetic electron and nuclear spin perturbations, respectively, given in the magnetic units (pseudomagnetic field).
Comagnetometer model
In the comagnetometer, a polarised AM and NG (in this case NG with nonzero nuclear spin is used, so its nuclei can be polarised) occupy the same volume inside of a spherical glass cell. Then, the response of the comagnetometer to magnetic and nonmagnetic perturbations is determined by a set of coupled Bloch equations (the socalled BlochHasegawa equations)^{11} with inclusion of nonmagnetic spin perturbations (for more details see Additional information)
where \(\mathbf {P^e}\) and \(\mathbf {P^n}\) stand for the electron polarisation of the AM and nuclear polarisation of the NG, respectively, \(\lambda\) is the couplingstrength factor for interaction between the two polarisations^{27}, \(M^e\) and \(M^n\) are the maximal possible magnetisations of AM and NG, and \(\gamma _n\) is the nuclear gyromagnetic ratio of NG, \(R_{c}^e\) and \(R_{c}^n\) are the electron and nuclear polarisationrelaxation rates which take into consideration relaxation due to various interatomic spin destruction collisions and collisions with a walls of a cell. \(R_{se}^{ne}\) and \(R_{se}^{ne}\) are rates of the polarisation transfer in spin exchange collisions form NG to AM and from AM to NG, respectively. The nonmagnetic nuclear perturbation of the NG spins is denoted by \(\mathbf {b_N^{NG}}\).
In this work, we consider the system dynamics over a time scale much shorter than the characteristic time of NGAM spinexchange collisions, \(t\ll (R_{se}^{ne})^{1}\). Thereby, in Eq. (2), we neglect the term \(R_{se}^{ne}\mathbf {P^n}\), which characterises the back action of NG on AM. In fact, in our description we use the steadystate polarisations of AM \(\mathbf {P_0^e}\) and NG \(\mathbf {P_0^n}\) with total relaxation rates for both AM and NG (\(R^e\) and \(R^n\), respectively)
For simplicity of the model, in the simulations both the steady state polarisations and relaxation rates are assumed to be independent.
With such a parameterisation the Eq. (2) have the following form
In order to fully capitalise on the comagnetometric capabilities (selfcompensation of slow magnetic fields), here we consider the operation in the selfcompensating regime, which is achieved when a static magnetic field \(\mathbf {B_c}\)
is applied to the system^{11} (here we assumed that the initial AM and NG polarisations are oriented along the \({\mathbf {z}}\) axis).
Nuclear spin content and sensitivity to neutron and proton spin perturbations
Due to the composite nature of atomic nuclei, the nuclear response may arise due to coupling to protons, neutrons, or a combination of both. Therefore, the effective pseudomagnetic fields \(\mathbf {b_N^{AM}}\) and \(\mathbf {b_N^{NG}}\) can be divided into parts: \(\mathbf {b_p}\) affecting the protons and \(\mathbf {b_n}\) acting on the neutrons^{9}
where i may stand for either AM or NG. These pseudomagnetic fields are determined by the nonmagnetic field \(\varvec{\Xi }\) and coupling constants \(\chi _n\) and \(\chi _p\) characterising the coupling to neutrons and protons, respectively
where j indicates either proton or neutron, \(\sigma _j\) corresponds to the proton or neutron fraction of the nuclear spin polarisation of AM and NG (denoted with upper indices), \(\mu _B\) is the Bohr magneton, \(\mu _N\) is the nuclear magneton, \(g_S\) is the AM Landé factor, and \(g_K\) is the NG nuclear spin gfactor. Equation (7) show that the effective pseudomagnetic fields for the NG are generally different from those for the AM. Thus, for the simulations or interpretation of results, it is convenient to introduce scaling factors \(\eta _j\) which allows comparison between the response of the SERF magnetometer and the comagnetometer to nonmagnetic spin couplings of the same strength
where the scaling factors are
In the simulations presented in this paper, we consider the responses of the magnetometers to the perturbation of the same coupling strength. This approach takes into account the scaling factors defined in Eq. (9). One can find a more detailed discussion of the nonmagnetic spin couplings in the SERF and the comagnetometer in Additional information.
Simulation parameters
In the case of both, the SERF and comagnetometer, the spin polarisation is monitored through measurements of the AMpolarisation projection on a given direction (here it is the \({\mathbf {x}}\) axis). As in both systems the atomic species are initially polarised along the \({\mathbf {z}}\) axis, both magnetometers are primarily sensitive to perturbations along \({\mathbf {y}}\) (the sensitive direction is determined by the torque generated by the external fields, rotating the spins around the sensitive direction). Specifically, it can be shown from Eqs. (1) and (4) that the magnetic or pseudomagnetic field applied along \({\mathbf {y}}\) rotates the initial polarisation in the \(\mathbf {xz}\) plane, which results in a change of the polarisation projection on the \({\mathbf {x}}\) axis. At the same time, a field applied along the \({\mathbf {x}}\) axis generates rotation in the \(\mathbf {yz}\) plane, therefore the projection of the polarisation on the \({\mathbf {x}}\) axis remains unchanged.
In the simulations, we assume that the SERF magnetometer operates using \(^{39}\)K atoms and the comagnetometer operates using a \(^{39}\)K\(^3\)He mixture. Parameters of potassium vapour are chosen to be exactly the same for both systems, so we can properly compare the sensitivity. The concentration of the alkali metal is equal to \(10^{14}\) cm\(^{3}\), which corresponds to saturated atomic K vapour at 190\(^\circ\)C. The concentration of \(^3\)He is \(10^{20}\) cm\(^{3}\), which corresponds to 3.5 amg. The assumed total relaxation rates \(R^e =\)1200 s\(^{1}\) for potassium and \(R^n =5\cdot 10^{5}\) s\(^{1}\) helium, corresponding to a lifetime of about 6 h, well reproduce the experimental conditions. The steadystate polarisation of the AM is \(P^e_0=\)0.5, which ensures the highest amplitude of the comagnetometer response^{21}, and also corresponds to typical experimental conditions. Polarisation of the NG is chosen to be \(P^n_0=\)0.05, which corresponds to typical experimental conditions. These parameters lead to the compensationfield value of \(131\) nT. The other simulation parameters (a complete list) is given in Additional information.
In case of \(^{39}\)K and \(^3\)He the relation between the effective magnetic fields for the AM and the NG generated by the same nonmagnetic perturbation defined in Eq. (9) leads to the following scaling factors
where the nuclear spin content information was taken from Ref.^{9}.
Results and discussion
Frequency response to different spin perturbations
In this section, we compare responses of the SERF magnetometers and comagnetometer devices to various spin perturbations. We analyse the response of the devices by investigating their signals when perturbed with an either magnetic or nonmagnetic periodic \({\mathbf {y}}\)oriented field \({\mathbf {A}}\)
where \(A_0\) is the amplitude and \(\nu\) is the frequency of the field. For the simulations, we assume that the amplitude of the perturbation is low enough so that the comagnetometer continuously operates in the selfcompensating regime. To analyse the response, the simulated data are fitted with the function
where \(S_0\), \(\phi\) and f are, respectively, the amplitude, phase, and frequency of the fitted signal. To avoid distortions in the fit, we ignore transient phenomena at the beginning of the simulations and just fit the dynamical steadystate data.
The fitted amplitude and phase of the signals arising due to magnetic, electron nonmagnetic, neutron nonmagnetic, and proton nonmagnetic perturbations are shown in Fig. 1. For perturbation amplitudes \(A_0\) small enough to provide a linear response of the system, the numerical results (points) are in good agreement with results of simulations performed within an analytical model. In our model, it was assumed that the AM and NG longitudinal components of the polarisation are not affected by the perturbation, i.e., the longitudinal polarisations are constant over time, being equal to steadystate polarisation. For more details about analytical solutions see Additional information.
A key feature of the comagnetometer in searches for pseudomagnetic spin couplings is its suppressed sensitivity to lowfrequency magneticfield perturbations. This is clearly visible in the data presented in Fig. 1a. At the lowest frequencies, the response amplitude of the comagnetometer to the magnetic field is roughly four orders of magnitude lower than the response of the SERF magnetometer. This difference decreases at higher frequencies reducing to zero at about 4 Hz. Since compensation is provided by the NG, which adiabatically follows the field changes, and, at the compensation point, the atoms are only experiencing a field proportional to their own magnetisation, \(B^i\approx B_c+\lambda M^{i'}P^{i'}_0=\lambda M^iP^i_0\), the frequency at which the SERF and comagnetometer magnetic responses are equal is determined by the NG Larmor frequency. Shifting the compensation point towards higher frequencies requires increasing the NG magnetisation, which can be achieved by either increasing the NG concentration or the polarisation. Both may be challenging experimentally. For higher frequencies the response of both systems has the same amplitude, since outside of the selfcompensating regime the comagnetometer response is predominantly determined by the AM. Thereby, the AM polarisation in the comagnetometer starts to behave in the same way as the freeAM polarisation in a usual SERF magnetometer.
There is a remarkable difference in the phase response of the two devices (Fig. 1a). For magnetic field frequencies below the NG Larmor frequency (4 Hz), the response of the comagnetometer is phase shifted by about \(\pi\), and it decreases sharply above that frequency, eventually becoming similar for both devices. For lower frequencies, the difference is due to the NG that compensates the magnetic field and no such compensation is present in the SERF magnetometer. For higher field frequencies the magnetic response of both devices is determined by the AM, so the observed dependencies are similar.
When analysing the response of the comagnetometer to nonmagnetic nuclear perturbation, it should be first noted that, unlike in the case of magnetic perturbation, the nonmagnetic nuclear perturbations are not compensated. Therefore, in that case, there is no reduction of the response amplitude at lower frequencies. To the contrary, the amplitude response to pseudomagnetic nuclear perturbations of the comagnetometer is significantly stronger than the response of the SERF magnetometer (Fig. 1c,d). In particular, for frequencies below 4 Hz, the comagnetometer response is roughly five orders of magnitude stronger for the neutron nonmagnetic perturbation (Fig. 1c), about three orders of magnitude stronger for the proton perturbation (Fig. 1d) and even though it deteriorates for higher frequencies, it still remains significantly larger than for the SERF system. Such dissimilarity is related to the difference in effective pseudomagnetic fields experienced by NG and AM spins [see Eq. (10)]. Note, that the comagnetometer has high sensitivity to the nuclear spin perturbations. Specifically, because of the high concentration of the NG, the response of the comagnetometer is predominantly determined by the gas. In turn, the large concentration difference between the NG and AM concentration (about six order of magnitude) is responsible for much higher sensitivity of the former to the nonmagnetic nuclear couplings. Moreover, the high concentration and hence the high, compared to AM, magnetisation of the NG atoms (despite the 5% polarisation of NG) ensures efficient transfer of the NGspin perturbation to the AM polarisation. Therefore, the NG magnetisationmediated nuclear coupling significantly increases the amplitude of the response of the comagnetometer to nonmagnetic nuclear perturbations. An additional cause of the difference in the response to nuclear perturbations stems from the different nuclear spin contents of the \(^{39}\)K and the \(^{3}\)He nuclei^{9}. Contribution of the proton polarisation in \(^{39}\)K is roughly four times larger than in the case of \(^{3}\)He. In contrast, the neutron polarisation has an about 24 times bigger contribution to the nuclear spin of \(^{3}\)He, than it contributes to the nuclear spin of \(^{39}\)K. The difference in neutron and proton spin fractions in \(^3\)He nuclear spin also leads to different response amplitudes of the comagnetometer to proton and neutron perturbations.
The phase response of the comagnetometer is similar for both the neutron and proton pseudomagnetic perturbations. Specifically, below 4 Hz, the phase shift between perturbation and response is close to \(\pi\) and it drops to about zero for higher frequencies. While for frequencies above 100 Hz the two responses differ, it should be noted that this frequency range is well beyond the bandwidth of the comagnetometer, where amplitude of the response drops by several orders of magnitude. At the same time, the phase response of the SERF magnetometer is the same for magnetic and nuclear nonmagnetic perturbations, being zero at lower frequencies and monotonically shifting toward \(\pi /2\) for frequencies beyond the bandwidth of the magnetometer.
The response of both devices to the electron nonmagnetic perturbation is similar at most of the frequencies with a distinct exception of the frequency corresponding to the NG Larmor frequency (4 Hz) (Fig. 1b). Such a behaviour is not surprising since, in both cases, the electron coupling perturbs the AM electron spins. On the other hand, differences in the response of the systems at the NG Larmor frequency arise due to the coupling between the perturbed AM and the NG atoms.
Comagnetometer response to transients
It was shown in the previous section that the response of the comagnetometer to nonmagnetic nuclear couplings is much stronger than that of the SERF magnetometer. Therefore, below we only focus on analysis of the response of the comagnetometer to transient magnetic and nonmagnetic perturbations.
As a generic example, we take a temporal Lorentzian perturbation of the amplitude \(\Lambda _0\) and halfwidth \(\Delta t\), centred at the time \(t_0\), which is directed along the \({\mathbf {y}}\) axis (this can be easily generalised for any pulse shape)
Such a definition allows keeping the amplitude of the pulse constant while varying its width (note that here the energy of the pulse is not preserved). Since here we are only interested in temporal parameters of the response, the proton and nuclear couplings are not considered independently but they are treated as a generic nuclear coupling. We simulated 200s long responses of the comagnetometer to the perturbations of different origin and the shape given by Eq. (13), centred at \(t_0 = 100\) s. We assumed the same amplitude of pulses in effective pseudomagnetic field units for all types of the perturbation to be small enough that the comagnetometer continuously operates in selfcompensating regime. For all results we numerically calculated the integral over the response of the system and the energy of the signal within the simulated window. Results, presented in Fig. 3, are discussed below in details.
In the previous section, we have shown that the comagnetometer frequency responses for magnetic and nonmagnetic spin couplings are different. In particular, the compensation of lowfrequency magnetic field in the comagnetometer results in a suppression of lowfrequency components of the pulse [Fig. 2b (top)] manifesting itself in a response of the comagnetometer to perturbations of different nature [Fig. 2a (top)]. The results show that the response significantly deviates from the Lorentzian shape of the magnetic pulse; the pulse is slightly longer and its shape is significantly distorted. At the same time, the distortion is much smaller both in the case of electron and nuclear perturbations, which is a manifestation of the absence of such compensation for pseudomagnetic spin interaction. Suppression of the lowfrequency components leads to a weaker response of the device to the magnetic pulse with a spectrum within the selfcompensation band. This is shown in Fig. 3, where the pulse integral and its energy are presented versus the pulse length. On contrary, no such behaviour is observed for nonmagnetic pulses, where lowfrequency components are not suppressed [Fig. 2b (top)]. These results are confirmed with the simulations for a wide range of pulse widths; the longer the pulse, the more prominent is the divergence in energy between the response to magnetic and nonmagnetic perturbations (Fig. 3). For 1s long pulses, the difference is more than five orders of magnitude, and it grows for longer pulses. As for the pulse widths around 0.01 s, the response energy is comparable for all types of perturbations, since for the short pulses, a significant fraction of the pulse spectrum is at higher frequencies, where response is comparable and large for both magnetic and nonmagnetic perturbations.
The suppression of the lowfrequency magnetic field in the comagnetometer provides another remarkable feature of the system; the integral over the comagnetometer signal is significantly suppressed for magnetic field perturbations when integrated over time intervals significantly longer than the pulse width (for the presented results 200slong integration window have been used). In contrast, the integral is finite for nonmagnetic spin perturbations. For the simulated comagnetometer system, assuming that the value of the effective pseudomagnetic field is the same as the magnetic field, the difference between integrals over detected magnetic and nonmagnetic transients is about seven orders of magnitude for pulse widths between 0.01 to 1 s (Fig. 3).
Conclusions
Numerical simulations of SERF and AMNG comagnetometers show a significantly stronger response of the latter to nuclear nonmagnetic spin perturbations. While the enhancement of the response due to the protoncoupling stems from the high sensitivity of the comagnetometer to the nuclear spin perturbations, a larger contribution of the neutron polarisation to the NG polarisation provides an additional enhancement of the comagnetometer response to neutron pseudomagnetic perturbation. At the same time, the response of both devices to the electron nonmagnetic spin perturbations is similar.
Our results demonstrate benefits of the comagnetometer in searches for transient pseudomagnetic spin couplings. On one hand, there is a suppressed response to lowfrequency magnetic fields, which reduces noise of the device, on the other, due to “highpass” magneticfilter nature of the comagnetometer, the device allows to differentiate between the magnetic and nonmagnetic transient responses, enabling a new way of identification of the observed signal nature. Specifically, the integral over time series signal for magnetic pulses has very small value, while it remains finite for nonmagnetic pulses. We also demonstrated that over a wide range of the pulse widths the energy of response to nonmagnetic perturbation is orders of magnitude greater than to magneticfield perturbation. Even thought, the energy difference decreases for shorter pulse length, hence pulse energies, the difference in the integrals over the responses to nonmagnetic and magnetic perturbations remains large (several orders of magnitude) for the pulses which can be detected with the comagnetometer. The features of the comagnetometer presented at this work demonstrate the capabilities of the comagnetometer in searches for transient nonmagnetic spin couplings, i.e., the signals that are being searched by the GNOME.
Change history
17 October 2023
A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598023438905
References
Budker, D. & Jackson Kimball, D. (eds.) Optical Magnetometry (Cambridge University Press, 2013).
Safronova, M. S. et al. Search for new physics with atoms and molecules. Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 025008. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.90.025008 (2018).
Jackson Kimball, D. et al. Searching for axion stars and Q balls with a terrestrial magnetometer network. Phys. Rev. D 97. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.97.043002 (2018).
Pospelov, M. et al. Detecting domain walls of axionlike models using terrestrial experiments. Phys. Rev. Lett.https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.021803 (2013).
Dailey, C. et al. Quantum sensor networks as exotic field telescopes for multimessenger astronomy. Nat. Astron.https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550020012427 (2021).
Pustelny, S. et al. The Global Network of Optical Magnetometers for Exotic physics (GNOME): A novel scheme to search for physics beyond the Standard Model. Ann. Phys.https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.201300061 (2013).
Afach, S. et al. Characterization of the global network of optical magnetometers to search for exotic physics (GNOME). Phys. Dark Univ. 22, 162–180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2018.10.002 (2018).
Afach, S. et al. Search for topological defect dark matter using the global network of optical magnetometers for exotic physics searches (GNOME) 2102, 13379 (2021).
Jackson Kimball, D. F. Nuclear spin content and constraints on exotic spindependent couplings. New J. Phys. 17, 073008. https://doi.org/10.1088/13672630/17/7/073008 (2015).
MasiaRoig, H. et al. Analysis method for detecting topological defect dark matter with a global magnetometer network. Phys. Dark Univ. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2020.100494 (2020).
Kornack, T. W. & Romalis, M. V. Dynamics of two overlapping spin ensembles interacting by spin exchange. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 253002. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.89.253002 (2002).
Kornack, T. W., Ghosh, R. K. & Romalis, M. V. Nuclear spin gyroscope based on an atomic comagnetometer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 230801. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.230801 (2005).
Ghosh, R. K. & Romalis, M. V. Measurement of spinexchange and relaxation parameters for polarizing \(^{21}\rm Ne\) with K and Rb. Phys. Rev. A 81, 043415. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.81.043415 (2010).
Li, R. et al. Rotation sensing using a krb\(^{21}\rm Ne\) comagnetometer. Phys. Rev. A 94, 032109. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.94.032109 (2016).
Fang, J. et al. Low frequency magnetic field suppression in an atomic spin comagnetometer with a large electron magnetic field. J. Phys. B At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 49, 111 (2016).
Chen, Y. et al. Spin exchange broadening of magnetic resonance lines in a highsensitivity rotating KRb\(^{21}\)Ne comagnetometer. Sci. Rep. 6, 1–12 (2016).
Fan, W., Quan, W., Zhang, W., Xing, L. & Liu, G. Analysis on the magnetic field response for nuclear spin comagnetometer operated in spinexchange relaxationfree regime. IEEE Access 7, 28574–28580. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2902181 (2019).
Shi, M. Investigation on magnetic field response of a \(^{87}\)Rb\(^{129}\)Xe atomic spin comagnetometer. Opt. Exp. 28, 32033–32041. https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.404809 (2020).
Appelt, S. et al. Theory of spinexchange optical pumping of \({}^{3}\rm {He}\) and \({}^{129} \text{ Xe }\). Phys. Rev. A 58, 1412–1439. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.58.1412 (1998).
Allred, J., Lyman, R., Kornack, T. & Romalis, M. V. Highsensitivity atomic magnetometer unaffected by spinexchange relaxation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 89, 130801 (2002).
Kornack, T. A Test of CPT and Lorentz Symmetry Using a K\(^3\)He Comagnetometer. Ph.D. Thesis. (Princeton University, 2005).
Brown, J. M., Smullin, S. J., Kornack, T. W. & Romalis, M. V. New limit on Lorentz and CPTviolating neutron spin interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 151604. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.105.151604 (2010).
Smiciklas, M., Brown, J. M., Cheuk, L. W., Smullin, S. J. & Romalis, M. V. New test of local Lorentz invariance using a \(^{21}\)NeRbK comagnetometer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 171604. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.107.171604 (2011).
Vasilakis, G., Brown, J. M., Kornack, T. W. & Romalis, M. V. Limits on new long range nuclear spindependent forces set with a K\(^3\)He comagnetometer. Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 261801. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.103.261801 (2009).
Lee, J., Almasi, A. & Romalis, M. Improved limits on spinmass interactions. Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 161801. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.161801 (2018).
Savukov, I. M. & Romalis, M. V. Effects of spinexchange collisions in a highdensity alkalimetal vapor in low magnetic fields. Phys. Rev. A 71, 023405. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.71.023405 (2005).
Schaefer, S. R. et al. Frequency shifts of the magneticresonance spectrum of mixtures of nuclear spinpolarized noble gases and vapors of spinpolarized alkalimetal atoms. Phys. Rev. A 39, 5613–5623. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.39.5613 (1989).
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Derek Jackson Kimball for useful discussions. Preliminary work in the directions discussed in the manuscript was carried out by Samer Afach. The work of MP and MK was supported by the Jagiellonian University in Krakow, Faculty of Physics Astronomy and Applied Computer Science internal grant (N17/MNS/000007/2020). SP would like to acknowledge support of the National Science Centre of Poland within the OPUS programme (2020/39/B/ST2/01524). The work of DB was supported by the Cluster of Excellence “Precision Physics, Fundamental Interactions, and Structure of Matter” (PRISMA+ EXC 2118/1) funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG) within the German Excellence Strategy (Project ID 39083149), by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (project DarkOST, grant agreement No 695405), and by the DFG Reinhart Koselleck project. The work of AW was supported by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) within the Quantumtechnologien program (Grant No. 13N15064).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
M.P. defined a numerical models, conducted simulations, analysed the results, constructed analytical solution and wrote the manuscript, M.K. participated into definition of a numerical models and edited manuscript, S.P. conceived and supervised the project, D.B., R.C., S.P., and A.W. analysed the results, discussed their interpretation and edited the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The original online version of this Article was revised: The Acknowledgements section in the original version of this Article was incomplete, where the grant number of one of the funding agencies was omitted. Full information regarding the corrections made can be found in the correction for this Article.
Supplementary Information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Padniuk, M., Kopciuch, M., Cipolletti, R. et al. Response of atomic spinbased sensors to magnetic and nonmagnetic perturbations. Sci Rep 12, 324 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s4159802103609w
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s4159802103609w
This article is cited by

Constraining ultralight dark matter through an accelerated resonant search
Communications Physics (2024)

Constraints on axionlike dark matter from a SERF comagnetometer
Nature Communications (2023)

Constraints on exotic spinvelocitydependent interactions
Nature Communications (2022)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.