To quote a recent answer from a highly active user (@Buffy) on this Exchange,
Acceptance into a doctoral program isn't a matter of accounting and counting chits. Someone, or a group, needs to make the assessment that you are highly likely to be successful. To that end your GPA is relevant, but so is everything you write or say as part of the process. If you are considered to be a serious candidate with a fairly easily predictable good future, you will be considered.
Each assessment of your abilities that ends in a score can be substituted in the above quote (i.e. GPA, Overall GRE, Subject-specific GRE, grades in specific classes, etc).
While I cannot speak to physics specifically, reading all of the threads on this exchange point to a clear pattern that indicates the PhD admissions process is a holistic assessment of your demonstrated performance and likelihood to succeed in the program. Several publications and glowing letters might compensate for lower scores - all of these notions are quite formulaic, i.e.: 'I didn't do so well in X but I did do really well in Y.'
Also, 160 is not 'low', it's the 76th percentile: https://www.prepscholar.com/gre/blog/gre-score-percentiles/
PS: I might recommend - as others have to me - that you focus on parts of your applications that make you a standout candidate, rather than focusing on one test that many consider to 'fail to predict student success'. Once I 'got over' my satisfactory - not stellar - GRE scores I was able to focus on other parts of my application (i.e. statements, letters, communicating with professors, understanding politics of acceptance at each different Uni, etc).
Just my humble two cents.