pith. sign in

arxiv: 2511.21495 · v3 · pith:ALDVJWPMnew · submitted 2025-11-26 · 🪐 quant-ph · physics.atom-ph

Quantum theory of electrically levitated nanoparticle-ion systems: Motional dynamics and sympathetic cooling

Saurabh Gupta , Bernard Faulend , Dmitry S. Bykov , Tracy E. Northup , Carlos Gonzalez-Ballestero This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 12:12 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph physics.atom-ph
keywords sympathetic coolinglevitated nanoparticlePaul trapquantum master equationCoulomb couplingmotional dynamicsDoppler cooling
0
0 comments X

The pith

Coulomb coupling to Doppler-cooled ions allows sympathetic cooling of a levitated nanoparticle to sub-kelvin temperatures in a Paul trap.

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

This paper develops a quantum theory for the coupled center-of-mass motion of a nanoparticle and ions trapped together in a dual-frequency linear Paul trap. It derives analytical expressions for their motional frequencies and classical trajectories, followed by a quantum master equation that describes the open-system dynamics. The theory quantifies how the nanoparticle's motion can be cooled through its Coulomb interaction with continuously Doppler-cooled ions. A sympathetic reader would care because this approach enables cooling of macroscopic objects without direct feedback, opening paths to quantum states of levitated systems that are otherwise hard to reach.

Core claim

The paper establishes that motional cooling of the nanoparticle down to sub-kelvin temperatures is achievable in current experiments even without motional feedback and in the presence of micromotion, with the cooling rate increasing linearly with the number of ions and reaching tenths of millikelvin for ensembles.

What carries the argument

The quantum master equation derived for the ion-nanoparticle system, which incorporates the Coulomb coupling and models the sympathetic cooling process.

If this is right

  • Cooling to sub-kelvin temperatures becomes possible without additional motional feedback.
  • The cooling rate scales linearly with the number of ions N.
  • Motional cooling can reach tenths of millikelvin in existing setups.
  • This provides a method to prepare non-Gaussian motional states of levitated nanoparticles using ion assistance.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Such systems might allow quantum superposition states of macroscopic objects if combined with other control techniques.
  • The approach could be extended to other hybrid quantum systems involving charged particles and levitated objects.
  • Experimental verification could involve comparing observed cooling rates with the predicted linear dependence on ion number.

Load-bearing premise

The Coulomb coupling between the nanoparticle and the ions must be strong enough for the quantum master equation to remain valid despite micromotion and without additional unmodeled decoherence channels.

What would settle it

An experiment that measures the nanoparticle's motional temperature after coupling to one or more Doppler-cooled ions and checks whether it drops below one kelvin without feedback or additional cooling mechanisms.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2511.21495 by Bernard Faulend, Carlos Gonzalez-Ballestero, Dmitry S. Bykov, Saurabh Gupta, Tracy E. Northup.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Scheme of the system under study. A charged dielec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Coupling rate between ion and nanoparticle center-of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Steady state phonon number of nanoparticle mo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. (a) Potential and kinetic energy of nanoparticle motion along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Optimal ion and nanoparticle equilibrium posi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Ion displacements in the first two normal modes, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We develop the theory describing the quantum coupled dynamics of the center-of-mass motion of a nanoparticle and an ensemble of ions co-trapped in a dual-frequency linear Paul trap. We first derive analytical expressions for the motional frequencies and classical trajectories of both nanoparticle and ions. We then derive a quantum master equation for the ion-nanoparticle system and quantify the sympathetic cooling of the nanoparticle motion enabled by its Coulomb coupling to a continuously Doppler-cooled ion. We predict that motional cooling down to sub-kelvin temperatures is achievable in state-of-the-art experiments even in the absence of motional feedback and in the presence of micromotion. We then extend our analysis to an ensemble of $N$ ions, predicting a linear increase of the cooling rate as a function of $N$ and motional cooling of the nanoparticle down to tenths of millikelvin in current experimental platforms. Our work establishes the theoretical toolbox needed to explore the ion-assisted preparation of non-Gaussian motional states of levitated nanoparticles.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a quantum theory for the coupled center-of-mass dynamics of an electrically levitated nanoparticle and co-trapped ions in a dual-frequency linear Paul trap. It first derives analytical expressions for motional frequencies and classical trajectories of both the nanoparticle and ions, then constructs a quantum master equation for the open-system dynamics. The central results are quantitative predictions of sympathetic cooling of the nanoparticle motion via Coulomb coupling to continuously Doppler-cooled ions, including sub-kelvin temperatures achievable without motional feedback even in the presence of micromotion, and a linear increase in cooling rate with ion number N that enables cooling to tenths of millikelvin.

Significance. If the central predictions hold, the work supplies a useful theoretical toolbox for ion-assisted preparation of non-Gaussian motional states in levitated nanoparticles. The analytical classical-trajectory results and the explicit scaling with ensemble size N constitute clear strengths that could guide future experiments in hybrid trapped-ion and levitated-optomechanics platforms.

major comments (1)
  1. [§4] §4 (quantum master equation, following the classical-trajectory analysis): the derivation invokes a time-independent effective description of the Coulomb interaction after the secular approximation. No Magnus-expansion or Floquet error bound is supplied to quantify the residual time-dependent micromotion contributions when the RF drive amplitude is comparable to the secular motion or when the coupling is not deeply perturbative. This approximation is load-bearing for the abstract claim of cooling “in the presence of micromotion” without additional feedback.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3] The definition of the effective coupling strength after time-averaging should be stated explicitly with its dependence on the ion-nanoparticle separation and charge product.
  2. [Figure 4] Figure captions for the cooling-rate versus N plots should include the precise parameter values used (trap frequencies, laser detuning, etc.) so that the linear scaling can be reproduced from the text alone.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive and constructive report. The assessment of the work's significance is appreciated. We address the single major comment below and will revise the manuscript to incorporate additional quantitative justification for the secular approximation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§4] §4 (quantum master equation, following the classical-trajectory analysis): the derivation invokes a time-independent effective description of the Coulomb interaction after the secular approximation. No Magnus-expansion or Floquet error bound is supplied to quantify the residual time-dependent micromotion contributions when the RF drive amplitude is comparable to the secular motion or when the coupling is not deeply perturbative. This approximation is load-bearing for the abstract claim of cooling “in the presence of micromotion” without additional feedback.

    Authors: We agree that an explicit error estimate would strengthen the justification of the time-independent effective Coulomb interaction. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated paragraph (or short subsection) that uses the already-derived analytical classical trajectories (which retain the full time-dependent micromotion) to bound the residual oscillating terms after secular averaging. For the parameter regime of current experiments—RF frequency much larger than secular frequencies and Coulomb coupling weak compared with trap frequencies—the leading correction scales as the ratio of micromotion amplitude to secular frequency and is typically ≪ 0.01. This bound is obtained by a first-order Magnus expansion over one RF period and confirms that the time-averaged master equation remains accurate on the Doppler-cooling timescale. The claim of sympathetic cooling in the presence of micromotion is therefore restricted to this experimentally relevant regime; we will make that scope explicit. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation chain is self-contained from standard potentials with no circular reductions

full rationale

The paper begins from standard linear Paul trap potentials and Coulomb interactions to derive analytical motional frequencies, classical trajectories, and a quantum master equation for the nanoparticle-ion system. Cooling rates and steady-state temperatures are computed as outputs of this open-system dynamics rather than being fitted to data or presupposed by definition. No self-citations are used as load-bearing premises for the central claims, and the predictions for sub-kelvin cooling (with or without micromotion) follow directly from the derived master equation without reducing to the inputs by construction. The analysis is therefore independent and self-contained against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The theory rests on standard quantum-optics and ion-trapping assumptions with no new free parameters or invented entities introduced; all quantities are derived from trap frequencies, charges, and Coulomb coupling.

axioms (2)
  • standard math Standard quantum mechanics and Lindblad master-equation formalism for open systems
    Invoked to obtain the quantum master equation after classical trajectory analysis.
  • domain assumption Coulomb interaction dominates the coupling and remains valid under micromotion in the dual-frequency Paul trap
    Central premise enabling sympathetic cooling without feedback.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5721 in / 1487 out tokens · 74868 ms · 2026-05-22T12:12:36.946357+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 74 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Secular frequencies We first start by determining the secular frequencies. Note that, to trap objects with such different charge- to-mass ratios as an ion and a∼100 nm nanoparticle, the two RF frequencies must be very different [38], i.e., ωs ≪ω f, or equivalentlyl≪1. We make use of the modified Lindstedt-Poincar´ e method [52, 53] to compute the secular ...

    work page

  2. [2]

    M −1 i 13×3 03×3 03×3 M −1 p 13×3 # ,(37) and the generalised potential matrix ¯V≡

    Displacement functions The Lindstedt-Poincar´ e method is especially suited to compute secular frequencies, as it allows to capture terms of all orders in the perturbative parameterq f (see e.g. Eq. (9)). This is not true for the computed displace- ment functionR(τ), which remains a finite-order expan- sion and thus less accurate than the Floquet solution...

    work page

  3. [3]

    06×6 −16×6 16×6 06×6 #

    Stability and coupling rates The potential matrix Eq. (38) is in general not di- agonal, resulting in coupling between the motional de- grees of freedom. The diagonal terms of ¯Vdescribe the new motional frequencies, which are renormalised due to Coulomb interaction. These new frequencies read Ω ′2 jσ ≡Ω 2 jσ + QiQp 4πε0MσD3 3(dji −d jp)2 D2 −1 .(40) Both...

    work page

  4. [4]

    for each value ofNusing SciPy’s root-finding func- tion. We perform a two-step search for multiple equi- librium positions: first, forN≤8, we run the solver 5000 +N! times, each with different seed values for the 3N+ 3 spatial coordinates of all the objects. At each run, the seed values are drawn randomly within a cubic box of size 200µm×200µm×200µm cente...

    work page doi:10.55776/coe1

  5. [5]

    Millen, T

    J. Millen, T. S. Monteiro, R. Pettit, and A. N. Vamivakas, Reports on Progress in Physics83, 026401 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    Gonzalez-Ballestero, M

    C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, M. Aspelmeyer, L. Novotny, R. Quidant, and O. Romero-Isart, Science374, eabg3027 (2021)

    work page 2021

  7. [7]

    Deli´ c, M

    U. Deli´ c, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V. Vuleti´ c, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, Science367, 892 (2020)

    work page 2020

  8. [8]

    Tebbenjohanns, M

    F. Tebbenjohanns, M. L. Mattana, M. Rossi, M. Frim- mer, and L. Novotny, Nature595, 378 (2021)

    work page 2021

  9. [9]

    Magrini, P

    L. Magrini, P. Rosenzweig, C. Bach, A. Deutschmann- Olek, S. G. Hofer, S. Hong, N. Kiesel, A. Kugi, and M. Aspelmeyer, Nature595, 373 (2021)

    work page 2021

  10. [10]

    Kamba, R

    M. Kamba, R. Shimizu, and K. Aikawa, Opt. Express30, 26716 (2022)

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Ranfagni, K

    A. Ranfagni, K. Børkje, F. Marino, and F. Marin, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033051 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Piotrowski, D

    J. Piotrowski, D. Windey, J. Vijayan, C. Gonzalez- Ballestero, A. de los R´ ıos Sommer, N. Meyer, R. Quidant, O. Romero-Isart, R. Reimann, and L. Novotny, Nature Physics19, 1009 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Dania, O

    L. Dania, O. S. Kremer, J. Piotrowski, D. Candoli, J. Vijayan, O. Romero-Isart, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, L. Novotny, and M. Frimmer, Nature Physics (2025)

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    Rossi, A

    M. Rossi, A. Militaru, N. Carlon Zambon, A. Riera- Campeny, O. Romero-Isart, M. Frimmer, and L. Novotny, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 083601 (2025)

    work page 2025

  15. [15]

    Kamba, N

    M. Kamba, N. Hara, and K. Aikawa, Science389, 1225 (2025)

    work page 2025

  16. [16]

    V. Jain, J. Gieseler, C. Moritz, C. Dellago, R. Quidant, and L. Novotny, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 243601 (2016)

    work page 2016

  17. [17]

    Romero-Isart, A

    O. Romero-Isart, A. C. Pflanzer, F. Blaser, R. Kaltenbaek, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer, and J. I. 17 Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.107, 020405 (2011)

    work page 2011

  18. [18]

    Romero-Isart, Phys

    O. Romero-Isart, Phys. Rev. A84, 052121 (2011)

    work page 2011

  19. [19]

    Bateman, S

    J. Bateman, S. Nimmrichter, K. Hornberger, and H. Ul- bricht, Nature Communications5, 4788 (2014)

    work page 2014

  20. [20]

    Neumeier, M

    L. Neumeier, M. A. Ciampini, O. Romero-Isart, M. As- pelmeyer, and N. Kiesel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, e2306953121 (2024)

    work page 2024

  21. [21]

    Roda-Llordes, A

    M. Roda-Llordes, A. Riera-Campeny, D. Candoli, P. T. Grochowski, and O. Romero-Isart, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 023601 (2024)

    work page 2024

  22. [22]

    Casulleras, P

    S. Casulleras, P. T. Grochowski, and O. Romero-Isart, Phys. Rev. A110, 033511 (2024)

    work page 2024

  23. [23]

    Romero-Isart, L

    O. Romero-Isart, L. Clemente, C. Navau, A. Sanchez, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 147205 (2012)

    work page 2012

  24. [24]

    Millen, P

    J. Millen, P. Z. G. Fonseca, T. Mavrogordatos, T. S. Monteiro, and P. F. Barker, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 123602 (2015)

    work page 2015

  25. [25]

    P. Z. G. Fonseca, E. B. Aranas, J. Millen, T. S. Monteiro, and P. F. Barker, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 173602 (2016)

    work page 2016

  26. [26]

    B. R. Slezak, C. W. Lewandowski, J.-F. Hsu, and B. D’Urso, New Journal of Physics20, 063028 (2018)

    work page 2018

  27. [27]

    G. P. Conangla, R. A. Rica, and R. Quidant, Nano Let- ters20, 6018 (2020)

    work page 2020

  28. [28]

    D. S. Bykov, M. Meusburger, L. Dania, and T. E. Northup, Review of scientific instruments93(2022)

    work page 2022

  29. [29]

    Gutierrez Latorre, G

    M. Gutierrez Latorre, G. Higgins, A. Paradkar, T. Bauch, and W. Wieczorek, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 054047 (2023)

    work page 2023

  30. [30]

    Hofer, R

    J. Hofer, R. Gross, G. Higgins, H. Huebl, O. F. Kieler, R. Kleiner, D. Koelle, P. Schmidt, J. A. Slater, M. Trupke, K. Uhl, T. Weimann, W. Wieczorek, and M. Aspelmeyer, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 043603 (2023)

    work page 2023

  31. [31]

    B. Melo, M. T. Cuairan, G. F. M. Tomassi, N. Meyer, and R. Quidant, Nature Nanotechnology19, 1270 (2024)

    work page 2024

  32. [32]

    Bonvin, L

    E. Bonvin, L. Devaud, M. Rossi, A. Militaru, L. Da- nia, D. S. Bykov, O. Romero-Isart, T. E. Northup, L. Novotny, and M. Frimmer, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 253602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    Bonvin, L

    E. Bonvin, L. Devaud, M. Rossi, A. Militaru, L. Dania, D. S. Bykov, M. Teller, T. E. Northup, L. Novotny, and M. Frimmer, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 043129 (2024)

    work page 2024

  34. [34]

    J. J. Hansen, S. Minniberger, D. Ilk, P. Asenbaum, G. Higgins, R. G. Povey, P. Schmidt, J. Hofer, R. Claessen, M. Aspelmeyer, and M. Trupke, arXiv preprint (2025)

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    D. S. Bykov, P. Mestres, L. Dania, L. Schm¨ oger, and T. E. Northup, Applied Physics Letters115(2019)

    work page 2019

  36. [36]

    Goldwater, B

    D. Goldwater, B. A. Stickler, L. Martinetz, T. E. Northup, K. Hornberger, and J. Millen, Quantum Sci- ence and Technology4, 024003 (2019)

    work page 2019

  37. [37]

    Dania, D

    L. Dania, D. Bykov, P. Mestres, and T. E. Northup, in Optical Trapping and Optical Micromanipulation XVI, Vol. 11083, edited by K. Dholakia and G. C. Spalding, International Society for Optics and Photonics (SPIE,

    work page

  38. [38]

    N. P. Bullier, A. Pontin, and P. F. Barker, Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics53, 175302 (2020)

    work page 2020

  39. [39]

    Martinetz, K

    L. Martinetz, K. Hornberger, J. Millen, M. S. Kim, and B. A. Stickler, npj Quantum Information6, 101 (2020)

    work page 2020

  40. [40]

    Dania, D

    L. Dania, D. S. Bykov, M. Knoll, P. Mestres, and T. E. Northup, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013018 (2021)

    work page 2021

  41. [41]

    Dania, D

    L. Dania, D. S. Bykov, F. Goschin, M. Teller, A. Kassid, and T. E. Northup, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 133602 (2024)

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    D. S. Bykov, L. Dania, F. Goschin, and T. E. Northup, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 213602 (2025)

    work page 2025

  43. [43]

    Seberson, P

    T. Seberson, P. Ju, J. Ahn, J. Bang, T. Li, and F. Ro- bicheaux, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B37, 3714 (2020)

    work page 2020

  44. [44]

    T. W. Penny, A. Pontin, and P. F. Barker, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013070 (2023)

    work page 2023

  45. [45]

    D. S. Bykov, L. Dania, F. Goschin, and T. E. Northup, Optica10, 438 (2023)

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    A. C. Pflanzer, O. Romero-Isart, and J. I. Cirac, Phys. Rev. A88, 033804 (2013)

    work page 2013

  47. [47]

    Toroˇ s, S

    M. Toroˇ s, S. Bose, and P. F. Barker, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 033218 (2021)

    work page 2021

  48. [48]

    Schut and V

    M. Schut and V. Scarani, Proposal for macroscopic delocalisation of a large mass in a rf trap (2025), arXiv:2509.17081 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2025

  49. [49]

    Dehmelt, Physica Scripta1995, 423 (1995)

    H. Dehmelt, Physica Scripta1995, 423 (1995)

    work page 1995

  50. [50]

    Trypogeorgos and C

    D. Trypogeorgos and C. J. Foot, Phys. Rev. A94, 023609 (2016)

    work page 2016

  51. [51]

    Leefer, K

    N. Leefer, K. Krimmel, W. Bertsche, D. Budker, J. Fa- jans, R. Folman, H. H¨ affner, and F. Schmidt-Kaler, Hy- perfine Interactions238, 12 (2016)

    work page 2016

  52. [52]

    Teller, V

    M. Teller, V. Messerer, K. Sch¨ uppert, Y. Zou, D. A. Fioretto, M. Galli, P. C. Holz, J. Reichel, and T. E. Northup, AVS Quantum Science5, 012001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  53. [53]

    Pogorelov, T

    I. Pogorelov, T. Feldker, C. D. Marciniak, L. Postler, G. Jacob, O. Krieglsteiner, V. Podlesnic, M. Meth, V. Negnevitsky, M. Stadler, B. H¨ ofer, C. W¨ achter, K. Lakhmanskiy, R. Blatt, P. Schindler, and T. Monz, PRX Quantum2, 020343 (2021)

    work page 2021

  54. [54]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 281 (2003)

    work page 2003

  55. [55]

    D. J. Berkeland, J. D. Miller, J. C. Bergquist, W. M. Itano, and D. J. Wineland, Journal of Applied Physics 83, 5025 (1998)

    work page 1998

  56. [56]

    Amore and A

    P. Amore and A. Aranda, Physics Letters A316, 218 (2003)

    work page 2003

  57. [57]

    Saxena and K

    V. Saxena and K. Shah, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science46, 474 (2018)

    work page 2018

  58. [58]

    (8) has two solutions forβ 2

    Note that Eq. (8) has two solutions forβ 2. Here we choose the solution that recovers the known behavior in the limit of a single-frequency trap, namely Eq. (9)

    work page

  59. [59]

    P. K. Ghosh,Ion Traps(Oxford University Press, Ox- ford, 1995)

    work page 1995

  60. [60]

    Lanchares, Monograf´ ıas Matem´ aticas Garc´ ıa de Galdeano39, 155 (2014)

    V. Lanchares, Monograf´ ıas Matem´ aticas Garc´ ıa de Galdeano39, 155 (2014)

    work page 2014

  61. [61]

    Kustura, C

    K. Kustura, C. C. Rusconi, and O. Romero-Isart, Phys. Rev. A99, 022130 (2019)

    work page 2019

  62. [62]

    Di´ osi, Europhysics Letters30, 63 (1995)

    L. Di´ osi, Europhysics Letters30, 63 (1995)

    work page 1995

  63. [63]

    Gonzalez-Ballestero, P

    C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, P. Maurer, D. Windey, L. Novotny, R. Reimann, and O. Romero-Isart, Phys. Rev. A100, 013805 (2019)

    work page 2019

  64. [64]

    T. Li, S. Kheifets, and M. G. Raizen, Nature Physics7, 527 (2011)

    work page 2011

  65. [65]

    S. A. Beresnev, V. G. Chernyak, and G. A. Fomyagin, Journal of Fluid Mechanics219, 405–421 (1990)

    work page 1990

  66. [66]

    Maurer, C

    P. Maurer, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, and O. Romero-Isart, Phys. Rev. A108, 033714 (2023)

    work page 2023

  67. [67]

    Eschner, G

    J. Eschner, G. Morigi, F. Schmidt-Kaler, and R. Blatt, J. Opt. Soc. Am. B20, 1003 (2003)

    work page 2003

  68. [68]

    [38], this choice ofζleads to an overestimation of the heating rate, as it assumes a probe beam propagating exactly along the motional axis

    Note that in regards to experiment Ref. [38], this choice ofζleads to an overestimation of the heating rate, as it assumes a probe beam propagating exactly along the motional axis

    work page

  69. [69]

    V. A. Iakubovich and V. M. Starzhinski˘ ı,Linear differen- tial equations with periodic coefficients(Wiley and Israel Program for Scientific Translations, 1975). 18

    work page 1975

  70. [70]

    Slane and S

    J. Slane and S. Tragesser, Nonlinear Dynamics and Sys- tems Theory11, 183 (2011)

    work page 2011

  71. [71]

    Barthel and Y

    T. Barthel and Y. Zhang, Journal of Statistical Mechan- ics: Theory and Experiment2022, 113101 (2022)

    work page 2022

  72. [72]

    M. G. A. Paris, F. Illuminati, A. Serafini, and S. De Siena, Phys. Rev. A68, 012314 (2003)

    work page 2003

  73. [73]

    For certain values ofNadditional stable solutions ap- peared in less than 0.01% of the runs. These solutions were discarded as they would correspond to weakly sta- ble minima occupying a very small volume in coordinate space, and thus unlikely to confine the objects under the influence of small – e.g. thermal – fluctuations

    work page

  74. [74]

    D. F. V. James, Applied Physics B66, 181 (1998)

    work page 1998