Metrology of Gravitational Effects with Mechanical Quantum Systems

Daniel Braun; Dennis R\"atzel; Hendrik Ulbricht; Marta Maria Marchese; Sofia Qvarfort; Stefan Nimmrichter

Metrology of Gravitational Effects with Mechanical Quantum Systems

T0 review · 0 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Massive mechanical quantum systems can measure gravity with quantum-limited precision and may reveal whether gravity itself is quantum.

desk verdict A clear, honest perspective on quantum metrology of gravity with mechanical systems; useful as an entry point, thin on quantitative support, and should be peer-reviewed as a perspective, not a research paper. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.18274 v1 pith:FFPIQKDN submitted 2025-01-30 quant-ph

Daniel Braun , Marta Maria Marchese , Stefan Nimmrichter , Sofia Qvarfort , Dennis Rätzel , Hendrik Ulbricht This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords quantummetrologyoptomechanicslevitatedparticlesgravitationalsensingFisherinformationgravitationallyinducedentanglementdecoherencemechanicalresonators

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 perspective argues that mechanical quantum systems—mechanical resonators, levitated particles, and free-falling masses whose center-of-mass motion is controlled at the quantum level—offer a route to measuring gravity and inertial effects with sensitivities that classical sensors cannot reach. The paper's central conclusion is that such systems are promising tools for gravity metrology, and that preparing highly non-classical probe states may improve sensitivity and potentially access quantum properties of the gravitational field. It does not report a new experiment; instead it maps the experimental and theoretical obstacles—large mass, large delocalization, long coherence times—and the metrological methods, such as quantum Fisher information, coherent detector networks, and quantum error correction, that could overcome them. A reader would care because the same platforms could sharpen practical sensors (gravitational-wave detection, geodesy, inertial navigation) and adjudicate between quantum and classical theories of gravity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the massive mechanical quantum system: a mechanical resonator or levitated or free-falling particle whose center-of-mass motion is coupled to optical, electric, or magnetic fields and read out at the quantum level. What carries the argument is the combination of mass and quantum control; the fundamental sensitivity of such a probe is quantified by the quantum Fisher information and the quantum Cramér–Rao bound, which scale with the variance of the probe state in the measured degree of freedom. The paper also treats three design constraints—large mass, large delocalization, and long coherence times—as the axes along which every platform must improve, and lists the methods (quantumness witnesses, orientation degrees of freedom, coherent detector networks, time-of-flight mass metrology, and quantum error correction) that address those constraints.

What would settle it

Measure the coherence time of a levitated or optomechanical sensor of milligram mass while it is prepared in a nonclassical state under the best vacuum and cryogenic isolation available. If the measured decoherence rate forces the quantum-Fisher-information advantage to vanish before a gravitational signal of the proposed magnitude can accumulate—or if gravitational entanglement between two such probes is consistently destroyed by environment noise—then the paper's central promise would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The authors conclude that mechanical quantum systems are promising tools for metrology of gravity and inertial effects. Quantum-level control of the center-of-mass motion, including the preparation of highly non-classical states, may be used to improve sensitivities and, in the most ambitious proposals, to access quantum properties of the gravitational field. The paper identifies three requirements that currently gate progress: the probe mass must be large enough for gravitational coupling to win over electromagnetic backgrounds; the quantum delocalization must be large because fundamental sensitivity bounds scale with the variance of the probed degree of freedom; and coherence times must be long enough to accumulate the signal. Meeting these needs, the authors argue, would enable tests of gravitationally induced entanglement, searches for dark matter and single gravitons, and falsification of the Schrödinger–Newton equation and other semiclassical gravity models.

Load-bearing premise

The entire prospect rests on the assumption that decoherence and heating can be suppressed well enough to keep a large, delocalized mechanical probe coherent for the time needed to accumulate a gravitational signal; if that proves impossible, the quantum advantage for the most ambitious tests would disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive quantum probes would falsify classical and semiclassical theories of gravity, including the Schrödinger–Newton equation.
Quantum-enhanced readout of mechanical resonators, already demonstrated below the standard quantum limit in gravitational-wave detectors, can be extended to force and acceleration sensing for geodesy, inertial navigation, and dark matter searches.
Optimal estimation via the quantum Fisher information and Bayesian hypothesis testing will shorten observation times and sharpen parameter constraints compared with classical estimation at the same resources.
Robust witnesses of quantumness (Wigner negativity witnesses, Tsirelson inequalities, truncated moment sequences) can certify nonclassical mechanical states with far fewer measurements than full state tomography.

Reading between the lines

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

If the proposed error-correction and coherence-extension techniques work at milligram masses, the same levitated platform could simultaneously serve as a gravitational sensor, a dark-matter detector, and a collapse-model test bed, sharing readout and vacuum infrastructure.
The paper's suggestion to exploit orientation degrees of freedom implies that rotational quantum sensors might reach gravitational sensitivity at lower mass than translational ones, since rotational dynamics is inherently nonlinear and less prone to some decoherence channels.
A quantitative cross-platform comparison—using the quantum Fisher information per decoherence rate for levitated, suspended, and free-falling systems—would make the perspective's promise testable and is a natural next step the paper leaves implicit.

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

Quick take: this is a perspective piece, not a research paper, and it knows it. The first page says outright that it expresses the authors' view and is not meant to be complete. Read it as a status report, and it works well.

The useful core is the explicit list of three bottlenecks — large mass, large delocalization, long coherence times — with a short explanation for why each matters. That is a real service, because it gives newcomers a structured way into the literature. The paper also draws attention to a few less obvious tools: time-of-flight mass analysis for determining the mass of trapped particles (and hence for G measurements), entanglement witnesses and Tsirelson inequalities for certifying quantumness, and the use of coherent detector networks. These are not developed into new proposals, but they are sensible pointers.

The main soft spot is exactly what you would expect from a perspective: the central claim is a hedged intuition that these systems are 'promising' and 'may' help. There is no quantitative back-of-the-envelope argument that, for any concrete protocol, quantum-enhancement beats classical sensing while decoherence is included. The paper acknowledges the experimental hurdles but doesn't quantify them against any proposed advantage. That limits its usefulness if you are trying to decide where to put effort. The TOF mass-analysis suggestion is plausible but lacks numbers for the mg scale; the gap between 10^-17 g and mg is huge and not addressed.

The citation pattern is healthy. Self-citations are there, but they point to the authors' actual proposals and sit alongside the mainstream literature. No flag there.

I agree with the stress-test note: there is no hidden load-bearing assumption, because the paper explicitly frames the challenges as open.

Bottom line: this is a good review-perspective for someone entering the field or wanting a compact map of the landscape. It doesn't deserve to be evaluated as a research contribution, but it deserves a fair peer-review process in a venue that accepts perspectives. I'd suggest the referee ask the authors to add one concrete quantitative comparison or tone down the promise language, but that's a minor request.

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a perspective/status article rather than an original research contribution. It argues that mechanical quantum systems, such as optomechanical resonators and levitated nanoparticles, are promising platforms for metrology of gravitational and inertial effects, including force and acceleration sensing, tests of the quantum nature of gravity, and searches for dark matter. The authors identify three central experimental challenges: large mass, large delocalization, and long coherence times, and they survey theoretical and technological advances that may help meet these challenges, including quantum Fisher information bounds, entanglement witnesses for quantumness certification, coherent detector networks, quantum error correction, and improved mass metrology. The concluding remarks are explicitly hedged, stating that such systems 'are promising tools' and 'may be used' to improve sensitivities and 'potentially' access quantum properties of the gravitational field. The article explicitly disclaims completeness and presents the authors' viewpoint.

Significance. The paper's value lies in its timely synthesis of a broad and current literature, bringing together optomechanics, levitated systems, gravitationally induced entanglement, collapse models, and quantum metrology. It is transparent about its limitations: it states at the outset that it is the authors' view and not intended to be complete, and the 'Current and Future Challenges' section openly acknowledges that the feasibility of the most ambitious proposals depends on unproven assumptions about decoherence. As a perspective, the central claim is appropriately hedged and does not overreach. The paper names concrete research directions (e.g., witness-based quantumness certification, coherent networks, time-of-flight mass measurements, and error correction) and provides a useful entry point to the field. Its main weakness is the absence of any quantitative comparison, such as a specific parameter regime in which quantum resources outperform classical sensing under realistic decoherence; this weakens the article's utility as a roadmap but does not invalidate its message.

minor comments (6)

[CURRENT AND FUTURE CHALLENGES] The word 'realizablity' is a typo for 'realizability', and 'gravitational constantG' is missing a space before 'G'.
[Author affiliation] The affiliation lists 'Unversität Bremen'; this should be 'Universität Bremen'.
[Throughout] The text uses both 'Cramér-Rao' and 'Cramer–Rao' (the latter in 'The quantum Cramer–Rao bound'); please standardize the spelling.
[Table I] Table I is not explicitly referenced in the body text; add a pointer such as 'see Table I' near the relevant discussion.
[First paragraph] The phrase 'center of mass motion' would be clearer as 'center-of-mass motion'.
[Heading] The 'STATUS' heading appears as 'ST ATUS' in the manuscript; check the formatting.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a perspective article whose central claim is a hedged research-direction statement, supported by external references, with no fitted parameters or derivation-by-construction.

full rationale

The manuscript is explicitly a status and perspective piece: it states 'This article expresses the view of the authors on the topic and is not intended to be complete.' Its central assertion in the concluding remarks is that mechanical quantum systems 'are promising tools' whose quantum control 'may be used to improve sensitivities and potentially access quantum properties of the gravitational field.' This is a tentative recommendation about research potential, not a derived prediction, so there is no derivation chain whose output could reduce to its input. The paper contains no fitted parameters, no new equations that define a quantity in terms of the target result, and no claims to have derived a new physical effect. Self-citations appear as contextual references to prior work (e.g., Qvarfort et al. on gravimetry, Marchese et al. on hypothesis testing, Braun et al. on coherent averaging), but none of these citations is load-bearing for a novel conclusion: they are used as background pointers for results already established elsewhere. The feasibility assumptions identified in the section 'CURRENT AND FUTURE CHALLENGES' (large mass, large delocalization, long coherence times) are openly stated as challenges rather than hidden premises, and the paper explicitly says these challenges 'are currently being addressed by experimental groups around the world.' Therefore, no circular step of any of the enumerated kinds is present, and the appropriate circularity score is 0.

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

This is a review, so there are no new parameters, axioms, or entities introduced. The paper relies on previously published results and on the general assumption that quantum mechanics applies to mechanical systems, which it cites.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Metrology of Gravitational Effects with Mechanical Quantum Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FFPIQKDN

@misc{pith2026250118274,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Metrology of Gravitational Effects with Mechanical Quantum Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FFPIQKDN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.18274}
}

read the original abstract

Mechanical quantum systems, such as resonators and levitated particles, offer unique opportunities for quantum metrology. Particularly, their significant mass and quantum-level control enable applications in measuring gravitational effects. This article highlights key challenges, alongside potential solutions to advance precision sensing and quantum-gravitational research.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

[1]

J. Aasi, B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari,et al., Advanced ligo, Classical and quantum gravity32, 074001 (2015)

work page 2015
[2]

Aspelmeyer, T

M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 1391 (2014)

2014
[3]

S. Bose, I. Fuentes, A. A. Geraci, S. M. Khan, S. Qvarfort, M. Rademacher, M. Rashid, M. Toroš, H. Ulbricht, and C. C. Wanjura, Massive quantum systems as interfaces of quantum mechanics and gravity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09218 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[4]

Hornberger, S

K. Hornberger, S. Gerlich, P. Haslinger, S. Nimmrichter, and M. Arndt, Colloquium: Quantum interference of clusters and molecules, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 157 (2012)

work page 2012
[5]

Y. Y. Fein, P. Geyer, P. Zwick, F. Kiałka, S. Pedalino, M. Mayor, S. Gerlich, and M. Arndt, Quantum superposition of molecules beyond 25 kDa, Nature Physics15, 1242 (2019)

work page 2019
[6]

Y. Chu, P. Kharel, T. Yoon, L. Frunzio, P. T. Rakich, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Creation and control of multi-phonon Fock states in a bulk acoustic-wave resonator, Nature563, 666 (2018), number: 7733 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

work page 2018
[7]

K. J. Satzinger, Y. P. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, G. A. Peairs, A. Bienfait, M.-H. Chou, A. Y. Cleland, C. R. Conner, E. Dumur, J. Grebel, I. Gutierrez, B. H. November, R. G. Povey, S. J. Whiteley, D. D. Awschalom, D. I. Schuster, and A. N. Cleland, Quantum control of surface acoustic-wave phonons, Nature563, 661 (2018), number: 7733 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

work page 2018
[8]

von Lüpke, Y

U. von Lüpke, Y. Yang, M. Bild, L. Michaud, M. Fadel, and Y. Chu, Parity measurement in the strong dispersive regime of circuit quantum acoustodynamics, Nat. Phys.18, 794 (2022), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

work page 2022

Show all 73 references

[9]

M. Bild, M. Fadel, Y. Yang, U. Von Lüpke, P. Martin, A. Bruno, and Y. Chu, Schrödinger cat states of a 16-microgram mechanical oscillator, Science380, 274 (2023)

2023
[10]

Riedinger, A

R. Riedinger, A. Wallucks, I. Marinković, C. Löschnauer, M. Aspelmeyer, S. Hong, and S. Gröblacher, Remote quantum entanglement between two micromechanical oscillators, Nature556, 473 (2018), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

2018
[11]

Marinković, A

I. Marinković, A. Wallucks, R. Riedinger, S. Hong, M. Aspelmeyer, and S. Gröblacher, Optomechanical bell test, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 220404 (2018)

2018
[12]

C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi, E. Damskägg, J.-M. Pirkkalainen, M. Asjad, A. A. Clerk, F. Massel, M. J. Woolley, and M. A. Sillanpää, Stabilized entanglement of massive mechanical oscillators, Nature556, 478 (2018), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

2018
[13]

Millen, T

J. Millen, T. S. Monteiro, R. Pettit, and A. N. Vamivakas, Optomechanics with levitated particles, Reports on Progress in Physics 83, 026401 (2020)

2020
[14]

D. C. Moore and A. A. Geraci, Searching for new physics using optically levitated sensors, Quantum Science and Technology 6, 014008 (2021)

2021
[15]

Delić, M

U. Delić, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V. Vuletić, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, Cool- ing of a levitated nanoparticle to the motional quantum ground state, Science 367, 892 (2020), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.aba3993

2020 doi
[16]

Weber, Gravitational-wave-detector events, Phys

J. Weber, Gravitational-wave-detector events, Phys. Rev. Lett.20, 1307 (1968)

1968
[17]

W.Jia, V.Xu, K.Kuns, M.Nakano, L.Barsotti, M.Evans, N.Mavalvala, L.S.Collaboration†,R.Abbott, I.Abouelfettouh, et al., Squeezing the quantum noise of a gravitational-wave detector below the standard quantum limit, Science385, 1318 (2024)

2024
[18]

T. P. Purdy, R. W. Peterson, and C. Regal, Observation of radiation pressure shot noise on a macroscopic object, Science 339, 801 (2013)

2013
[19]

Armata, L

F. Armata, L. Latmiral, A. Plato, and M. Kim, Quantum limits to gravity estimation with optomechanics, Physical Review A 96, 043824 (2017)

2017
[20]

Qvarfort, A

S. Qvarfort, A. Serafini, P. F. Barker, and S. Bose, Gravimetry through non-linear optomechanics, Nature communications 9, 3690 (2018)

2018
[21]

Qvarfort, A

S. Qvarfort, A. D. K. Plato, D. E. Bruschi, F. Schneiter, D. Braun, A. Serafini, and D. Rätzel, Optimal estimation of time-dependent gravitational fields with quantum optomechanical systems, Phys. Rev. Research3, 013159 (2021). 5

2021
[22]

Kilian, M

E. Kilian, M. Rademacher, J. M. Gosling, J. H. Iacoponi, F. Alder, M. Toroš, A. Pontin, C. Ghag, S. Bose, T. S. Monteiro, et al., Dark matter searches with levitated sensors, arXiv preprint arXiv:2401.17990 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[23]

Carney, G

D. Carney, G. Krnjaic, D. C. Moore, C. A. Regal, G. Afek, S. Bhave, B. Brubaker, T. Corbitt, J. Cripe, N. Crisosto,et al., Mechanical quantum sensing in the search for dark matter, Quantum Science and Technology6, 024002 (2021)

2021
[24]

Carney, A

D. Carney, A. Hook, Z. Liu, J. M. Taylor, and Y. Zhao, Ultralight dark matter detection with mechanical quantum sensors, New Journal of Physics23, 023041 (2021)

2021
[25]

Carney, V

D. Carney, V. Domcke, and N. L. Rodd, Graviton detection and the quantization of gravity, Phys. Rev. D109, 044009 (2024)

2024
[26]

Tobar, S

G. Tobar, S. K. Manikandan, T. Beitel, and I. Pikovski, Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing, Nature Com- munications 15, 7229 (2024)

2024
[27]

S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroš, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn, Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240401 (2017)

2017
[28]

Marletto and V

C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240402 (2017)

2017
[29]

Wan,Quantum superposition on nano-mechanical oscillator , Ph.D

C. Wan,Quantum superposition on nano-mechanical oscillator , Ph.D. thesis, Imperial College, London (2017)

2017
[30]

H. Miao, D. Martynov, H. Yang, and A. Datta, Quantum correlations of light mediated by gravity, Physical Review A 101, 063804 (2020)

2020
[31]

Diósi, Gravitation and quantum-mechanical localization of macro-objects, Physics Letters A105, 199 (1984)

L. Diósi, Gravitation and quantum-mechanical localization of macro-objects, Physics Letters A105, 199 (1984)

1984
[32]

Carlip, Is quantum gravity necessary?, Classical and Quantum Gravity25, 154010 (2008)

S. Carlip, Is quantum gravity necessary?, Classical and Quantum Gravity25, 154010 (2008)

2008
[33]

Giulini and A

D. Giulini and A. Großardt, Gravitationally induced inhibitions of dispersion according to the Schrödinger–Newton equa- tion, Classical and Quantum Gravity28, 195026 (2011)

2011
[34]

Oppenheim, A postquantum theory of classical gravity?, Physical Review X13, 041040 (2023)

J. Oppenheim, A postquantum theory of classical gravity?, Physical Review X13, 041040 (2023)

2023
[35]

Oppenheim, C

J. Oppenheim, C. Sparaciari, B. Šoda, and Z. Weller-Davies, Gravitationally induced decoherence vs space-time diffusion: testing the quantum nature of gravity, Nature Communications14, 7910 (2023), number: 1 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

2023
[36]

Bassi, K

A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh, and H. Ulbricht, Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests, Reviews of Modern Physics85, 471 (2013)

2013
[37]

Carlesso, S

M. Carlesso, S. Donadi, L. Ferialdi, M. Paternostro, H. Ulbricht, and A. Bassi, Present status and future challenges of non-interferometric tests of collapse models, Nature Physics18, 243 (2022)

2022
[38]

Carlesso, A

M. Carlesso, A. Bassi, M. Paternostro, and H. Ulbricht, Testing the gravitational field generated by a quantum superpo- sition, New Journal of Physics21, 093052 (2019)

2019
[39]

H. Miao, D. Martynov, H. Yang, and A. Datta, Quantum correlations of light mediated by gravity, Phys. Rev. A101, 063804 (2020)

2020
[40]

A. D. K. Plato, D. Rätzel, and C. Wan, Enhanced Gravitational Entanglement via Modulated Optomechanics, Quantum 7, 1177 (2023)

2023
[41]

Spengler, D

F. Spengler, D. Rätzel, and D. Braun, Perspectives of measuring gravitational effects of laser light and particle beams, New Journal of Physics24, 053021 (2022), publisher: IOP Publishing

2022
[42]

J. S. Pedernales and M. B. Plenio, On the origin of force sensitivity in tests of quantum gravity with delocalised mechanical systems, Contemporary Physics64, 147 (2023), https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2023.2286074

2023
[43]

B. A. Stickler, K. Hornberger, and M. Kim, Quantum rotations of nanoparticles, Nature Reviews Physics3, 589 (2021)

2021
[44]

Kafri, G

D. Kafri, G. J. Milburn, and J. M. Taylor, Bounds on quantum communication via newtonian gravity, New Journal of Physics 17, 015006 (2015)

2015
[45]

Tilloy and L

A. Tilloy and L. Diósi, Sourcing semiclassical gravity from spontaneously localized quantum matter, Physical Review D 93, 024026 (2016)

2016
[46]

Tilloy, General quantum-classical dynamics as measurement based feedback, SciPost Phys.17, 083 (2024)

A. Tilloy, General quantum-classical dynamics as measurement based feedback, SciPost Phys.17, 083 (2024)

2024
[47]

H. Yang, H. Miao, D.-S. Lee, B. Helou, and Y. Chen, Macroscopic quantum mechanics in a classical spacetime, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170401 (2013)

2013
[48]

Großardt, J

A. Großardt, J. Bateman, H. Ulbricht, and A. Bassi, Optomechanical test of the schrödinger-newton equation, Phys. Rev. D 93, 096003 (2016)

2016
[49]

J. A. Gruca, A. Kumar, R. Ganardi, P. Arumugam, K. Kropielnicka, and T. Paterek, Correlations and signaling in the schrödinger-newton model (2024), arXiv:2406.09230 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[50]

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, High-q magnetic levitation and control of superconducting microspheres at millikelvin temperatures, Phys. Re...

2023
[51]

T. M. Fuchs, D. G. Uitenbroek, J. Plugge, N. van Halteren, J.-P. van Soest, A. Vinante, H. Ulbricht, and T. H. Oosterkamp, Measuring gravity with milligram levitated masses, Science Advances 10, eadk2949 (2024), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adk2949

2024 doi
[52]

Millen, P

J. Millen, P. Z. G. Fonseca, T. Mavrogordatos, T. S. Monteiro, and P. F. Barker, Cavity cooling a single charged levitated nanosphere, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 123602 (2015)

2015
[53]

Agafonova, P

S. Agafonova, P. Rossello, M. Mekonnen, and O. Hosten, Laser cooling a 1-milligram torsional pendulum to 240 mi- crokelvins, arXiv:2408.09445 [quant-ph] (2024)

2024
[54]

L. Lami, J. S. Pedernales, and M. B. Plenio, Testing the quantumness of gravity without entanglement, Phys. Rev. X14, 021022 (2024). 6

2024
[55]

Filip and L

R. Filip and L. Mišta, Detecting Quantum States with a Positive Wigner Function beyond Mixtures of Gaussian States, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 200401 (2011), publisher: American Physical Society

2011
[56]

Chabaud, P.-E

U. Chabaud, P.-E. Emeriau, and F. Grosshans, Witnessing Wigner Negativity, Quantum5, 471 (2021)

2021
[57]

L. H. Zaw, Certifiable Lower Bounds of Wigner Negativity Volume and Non-Gaussian Entanglement with Conditional Displacement Gates, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 050201 (2024), publisher: American Physical Society

2024
[58]

Tsirelson, How often is the coordinate of a harmonic oscillator positive? (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0611147

B. Tsirelson, How often is the coordinate of a harmonic oscillator positive? (2006), arXiv:quant-ph/0611147

2006 arXiv
[59]

L. H. Zaw, C. C. Aw, Z. Lasmar, and V. Scarani, Detecting quantumness in uniform precessions, Phys. Rev. A106, 032222 (2022), publisher: American Physical Society

2022
[60]

Jayachandran, L

P. Jayachandran, L. H. Zaw, and V. Scarani, Dynamics-Based Entanglement Witnesses for Non-Gaussian States of Har- monic Oscillators, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 160201 (2023), publisher: American Physical Society

2023
[61]

L. H. Zaw and V. Scarani, Dynamics-based quantumness certification of continuous variables using time-independent Hamiltonians with one degree of freedom, Phys. Rev. A108, 022211 (2023), publisher: American Physical Society

2023
[62]

Plávala, T

M. Plávala, T. Heinosaari, S. Nimmrichter, and O. Gühne, Tsirelson inequalities: Detecting cheating and quantumness in a single framework, Phys. Rev. A109, 062216 (2024), publisher: American Physical Society

2024
[63]

Bohnet-Waldraff, D

F. Bohnet-Waldraff, D. Braun, and O. Giraud, Entanglement and the truncated moment problem, Phys. Rev. A96, 032312 (2017)

2017
[64]

Milazzo, D

N. Milazzo, D. Braun, and O. Giraud, Truncated moment sequences and a solution to the channel separability problem, Phys. Rev. A102, 052406 (2020)

2020
[65]

J. M. E. Fraïsse and D. Braun, Coherent averaging, Ann. Phys. (Berlin) , 1 (2015)

2015
[66]

Braun and S

D. Braun and S. Popescu, Coherently enhanced measurements in classical mechanics, Quantum Measurements and Quan- tum Metrology 2 (2014)

2014
[67]

Lee and P

J. Lee and P. T. A. Reilly, Limitation of Time-of-Flight Resolution in the Ultra High Mass Range, Analytical Chemistry 83, 5831 (2011), publisher: American Chemical Society

2011
[68]

J. Lee, H. Chen, T. Liu, C. E. Berkman, and P. T. A. Reilly, High Resolution Time-of-Flight Mass Analysis of the Entire Range of Intact Singly-Charged Proteins, Analytical Chemistry83, 9406 (2011), publisher: American Chemical Society

2011
[69]

J. Wang, T. Penny, J. Recoaro, B. Siegel, Y.-H. Tseng, and D. C. Moore, Mechanical Detection of Nuclear Decays, Physical Review Letters 133, 023602 (2024)

2024
[70]

M. M. Marchese, A. Belenchia, S. Pirandola, and M. Paternostro, An optomechanical platform for quantum hypothesis testing for collapse models, New Journal of Physics23, 043022 (2021)

2021
[71]

W. Dür, M. Skotiniotis, F. Fröwis, and B. Kraus, Improved quantum metrology using quantum error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 080801 (2014)

2014
[72]

E. M. Kessler, I. Lovchinsky, A. O. Sushkov, and M. D. Lukin, Quantum error correction for metrology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 150802 (2014)

2014
[73]

Arrad, Y

G. Arrad, Y. Vinkler, D. Aharonov, and A. Retzker, Increasing sensing resolution with error correction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 150801 (2014)

2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

J. Aasi, B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari,et al., Advanced ligo, Classical and quantum gravity32, 074001 (2015)

work page 2015

[2] [2]

Aspelmeyer, T

M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Reviews of Modern Physics86, 1391 (2014)

2014

[3] [3]

S. Bose, I. Fuentes, A. A. Geraci, S. M. Khan, S. Qvarfort, M. Rademacher, M. Rashid, M. Toroš, H. Ulbricht, and C. C. Wanjura, Massive quantum systems as interfaces of quantum mechanics and gravity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.09218 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[4] [4]

Hornberger, S

K. Hornberger, S. Gerlich, P. Haslinger, S. Nimmrichter, and M. Arndt, Colloquium: Quantum interference of clusters and molecules, Reviews of Modern Physics84, 157 (2012)

work page 2012

[5] [5]

Y. Y. Fein, P. Geyer, P. Zwick, F. Kiałka, S. Pedalino, M. Mayor, S. Gerlich, and M. Arndt, Quantum superposition of molecules beyond 25 kDa, Nature Physics15, 1242 (2019)

work page 2019

[6] [6]

Y. Chu, P. Kharel, T. Yoon, L. Frunzio, P. T. Rakich, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Creation and control of multi-phonon Fock states in a bulk acoustic-wave resonator, Nature563, 666 (2018), number: 7733 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

work page 2018

[7] [7]

K. J. Satzinger, Y. P. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, G. A. Peairs, A. Bienfait, M.-H. Chou, A. Y. Cleland, C. R. Conner, E. Dumur, J. Grebel, I. Gutierrez, B. H. November, R. G. Povey, S. J. Whiteley, D. D. Awschalom, D. I. Schuster, and A. N. Cleland, Quantum control of surface acoustic-wave phonons, Nature563, 661 (2018), number: 7733 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group

work page 2018

[8] [8]

von Lüpke, Y

U. von Lüpke, Y. Yang, M. Bild, L. Michaud, M. Fadel, and Y. Chu, Parity measurement in the strong dispersive regime of circuit quantum acoustodynamics, Nat. Phys.18, 794 (2022), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

work page 2022