Let $$\displaystyle M_n(f)=\int_0^1t^nf(t)dt, \quad \forall n\in\mathbb N$$ I ask if they exist a continuous function f on [0,1] such that $$M_n(f)=e^{-n^2}\quad \forall n\in\mathbb N$$ it seems obvious that such f does not exist, but I do not know how to prove it rigorously
My work: if we put $t=e^{-x}$ then $M_n(f)=\int_{0}^{\infty}e^{-nx}g(x)dx$. The function g is defined by $g(x)=f(e^{-x})e^{-x}$
The question amounts to looking for a continuous function g on $] 0, +\infty[$ such that $$\mathcal{L} (g) (n) =e^{-n^2}\quad n\in\mathbb N$$ with $\mathcal{L}$ : Laplace transform
We prove a more general claim:
Note that OP's case corresponds to a signed measure of the form $\mu(\mathrm{d}t) = f(t) \, \mathrm{d}t$. Then the claim tells that there exists no such $\mu$ satisfying $M_n(\mu) = e^{-n^2}$ eventually. Indeed, any such $\mu$ would satisfy $\text{(*)}$, and then the claim leads to a contradiction that $M_n(\mu) = 0$ for all $n \geq 1$.
Proof of Claim. Assume that $\text{(*)}$ holds. For any $r > 0$ and $N \in \mathbb{N}_1$, we define
$$ S_N(r) := \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k!} r^{-Nk} M_{Nk}(\mu). $$
Then from the bound
$$\left| S_N(r) \right| \leq \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{1}{k!} r^{-Nk}\left| M_{Nk}(\mu)\right| \leq e \sup_{n \geq N} \left( r^{-n}\left| M_n(\mu) \right| \right), $$
we have $ \lim_{N\to\infty} S_N(r) = 0 $ for any $r > 0$. Moreover, by the Fubini's Theorem and the Dominated Convergence Theorem,
\begin{align*} 0 &= \lim_{N\to\infty} S_N(r)\\ &= \lim_{N\to\infty} \int_{[0,1]} \left( \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \frac{(-1)^{k-1}}{k!} (t/r)^{Nk} \right) \, \mu(\mathrm{d}t) \tag{$\because$ Fubini} \\ &= \lim_{N\to\infty} \int_{[0,1]} \left( 1 - e^{-(t/r)^N} \right) \, \mu(\mathrm{d}t) \\ &= \int_{[0,1]} \lim_{N\to\infty} \left( 1 - e^{-(t/r)^N} \right) \, \mu(\mathrm{d}t) \tag{$\because$ DCT} \\ &= \int_{[0,1]} \left( \mathbf{1}_{\{t > r\}} + (1-e^{-1})\mathbf{1}_{\{t=r\}} \right) \, \mu(\mathrm{d}t) \\ &= \mu([r,1])-e^{-1}\mu(\{r\}). \end{align*}
(When $r > 1$, we regard $[r, 1] = \varnothing$.) Consequently,
$$ \mu([r, 1]) = 0 $$
holds, initially when $r$ is not an atom of $\mu$, and then for all $r > 0$ by the limiting argument. Therefore $\mu$ must be concentrated at $0$. $\square$