Optical centrifuge for nanoparticles

J.M.H. Gosling; Kit Ka Kelvin Ho; M. Rademacher; Peiyao Xiong; P. F. Barker

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Optical centrifuge for nanoparticles

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A chirped rotating polarization in an optical tweezer can drag a levitated anisotropic nanoparticle to rotation rates beyond 100 MHz, with the final frequency set by the chirp and duration.

desk verdict A promising application of the optical centrifuge to levitated nanorotors, but the key formula for a0 is dimensionally wrong and the central example is unverifiable as printed. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.16134 v1 pith:ZZ5G2ZP6 submitted 2025-06-19 physics.optics quant-ph

Peiyao Xiong , Kit Ka Kelvin Ho , J.M.H. Gosling , M. Rademacher , P. F. Barker This is my paper

classification physics.opticsquant-ph

keywords opticalcentrifugelevitatednanorotortweezerpolarizationchirprotationalcontrolstabilityparameterelectro-opticmodulationnanoparticlerotation

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

An optical centrifuge, a laser field whose linear polarization rotates with a steadily increasing angular velocity, can be adapted from molecular physics to levitated nanoparticles. The paper argues that an anisotropic nanoparticle trapped in a tightly focused tweezer will be dragged adiabatically by the rotating polarization, provided the polarization chirp $\beta_c$ stays below the peak angular acceleration $a_0$ the optical potential can supply. Under that condition the rotor reaches a well-defined rotational frequency set by the chirp and the acceleration time rather than by gas friction, for example 100 MHz in 0.11 ms with $\beta_c = 6 \times 10^{12}$ rad/s$^2$. Numerical simulations with gas collisions show brief acceleration survives even in modest vacuum, while collision-free quantum-grade operation at 100 MHz requires pressure below about $10^{-6}$ mbar. The paper also reports calibration of an electro-optic polarization controller whose measured, slightly elliptical polarization states are sufficient, in simulation, to drive a nanorotor to the 100 MHz target.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the same pendulum-in-a-chirped-lattice dynamics used for molecular optical centrifuges, transplanted to a levitated nanorotor. Working in the accelerated frame defined by the phase $\theta = 2\alpha - \beta_c t^2$, the angular dynamics reduce to $d\eta/dT = -2(a_0/\beta_c)\sin\theta - 2$, with $\eta = d\theta/dT$ and $T = \sqrt{\beta_c}\,t$. This equation has stable critical points at $\sin\theta_c = -\psi$, so the stability parameter $\psi = \beta_c/a_0$ must satisfy $|\psi| < 1$; the phase space shows the characteristic teardrop separatrix that bounds trapped trajectories. The optical potential comes from the Hamiltonian term $H_{\mathrm{grad}}$ built from the lab-frame susceptibility tensor rotated by Euler angles, and the kinetic part $H_{\mathrm{free}}$ is the free-rotor energy; scattering forces are dropped because the rotor is taken to be subwavelength. The gyroscopic coupling among $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$ is what drives $\beta$ toward $\pi/2$ during sustained acceleration.

What would settle it

Place a nanorotor of known volume, anisotropic susceptibility, and moment of inertia in the tweezer, sweep the chirp $\beta_c$ through the predicted $a_0$, and compare the loss boundary and final rotation frequency $f = \beta_c t_{\mathrm{acc}}/(2\pi)$ with the model; a mismatch outside experimental uncertainty would falsify the gradient-only adiabatic picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a focused optical tweezer whose linear polarization is chirped in angle can act as an optical centrifuge for a levitated symmetric nanorotor, accelerating it to rotation frequencies above 100 MHz in about a tenth of a millisecond. The condition for stable trapping in the accelerated frame is the inequality $\psi = \beta_c/a_0 < 1$, where $\beta_c$ is the angular chirp rate of the polarization and $a_0 = IV(\chi_1 - \chi_3)/(2c\epsilon_0 J_1)$ is the peak angular acceleration supplied by the gradient force on the rotor's anisotropic polarizability. When this holds, the rotor librates about the accelerating polarization axis and follows it, so the final rotation frequency is set by the chirp and duration as $f = \beta_c t_{\mathrm{acc}}/(2\pi)$. Numerical solutions of the full Euler-angle Hamiltonian confirm the trapping, with the $\beta$ and $\gamma$ degrees of freedom coupling gyroscopically and $\beta$ settling toward its equilibrium value during long acceleration. Stochastic simulations including gas damping show the rotor stays trapped for a time of order the inverse damping rate, and measured voltage-to-polarization maps from a fast electro-optic controller, even with small ellipticity, produce a simulated centrifuge that reaches the 100 MHz target in about 100 $\mu$s.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes the nanoparticle is so much smaller than the 1064 nm trapping wavelength that only the gradient force matters and scattering forces can be dropped, and the paper gives no values for the particle's volume, anisotropic polarizability, or moment of inertia, so that assumption and the quoted numbers cannot be independently checked from the text.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A rotor trapped in the accelerating potential reaches a final rotation frequency $f = \beta_c t_{\mathrm{acc}}/(2\pi)$, so the target spin is programmed by the chirp rate and pulse duration rather than being set by gas damping.
The stability condition $|\psi| < 1$ fixes the allowed chirp for a given trap intensity and rotor anisotropy and defines a constant phase lag $\theta_c$ at which the rotor follows the polarization.
Gas collisions limit the acceleration window to roughly the inverse rotational damping rate, but in modest vacuum this still permits acceleration to MHz-scale rotation, and avoiding a single collision for quantum experiments at 100 MHz requires pressure below about $10^{-6}$ mbar.
A slightly elliptical polarization from a practical electro-optic controller, with $|S_3| \le 0.01$ and $S_1^2 + S_2^2 \ge 0.78$, still drags the rotor to the target frequency in the simulated dynamics.

Reading between the lines

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

An immediate extension implied by the paper is that stopping the chirp at different times would make the same tweezer a tunable source of nanorotors at arbitrary target frequencies, which could be used to search for rotational-state discretization at MHz-scale rotation rates.
The $\psi < 1$ boundary also gives a clean experimental dial: sweeping $\beta_c$ upward and recording the chirp at which the rotor drops out of the optical potential would test the model and, if the trap intensity is known, infer the product $V(\chi_1 - \chi_3)/J_1$ of the particle, parameters the paper does not state.
Because the model keeps only the gradient force, a natural test of its size limit is to repeat the centrifuge with particles whose radius approaches the trapping wavelength and check whether the loss boundary shifts relative to $\psi = 1$, which would isolate the omitted radiation-pressure torque.

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

Xiong et al. propose applying the molecular optical centrifuge to levitated nanorotors in an optical tweezer, with a stability parameter psi = beta_c/a0 that needs to be below 1. The idea is new as an application, and the stability analysis is a clean adaptation of the chirped optical lattice. The simulations and collision estimates are plausible, and the experimental demonstration of a fast electro-optic polarization chirp is a useful preliminary step.

The soft spots are real. The biggest is Eq. (17): the printed formula for the peak angular acceleration a0 has the wrong dimensions and an extra factor of 1/(2*epsilon_0). Re-deriving from their own Eq. (3) gives a0 = I V delta_chi/(c J1). As printed, a0 = 8.85e12 rad/s^2 would require V*delta_chi/J1 ~ 0.22 m/kg, which for a typical solid means a particle of order centimeters, not nanometers. The central 100 MHz example cannot be checked with the printed formula, even though the correct formula would likely give a larger a0 and thus a more stable centrifuge. The particle volume, susceptibility anisotropy, and moment of inertia are never stated, making the example unverifiable without the error.

Second, the angular acceleration equations (12)-(13) are stated without derivation; the paper jumps from the Hamiltonian to these expressions. That is opaque, though probably correct in substance. Third, the experimental section quotes a chirp of 10^12 s^-2, but reaching 100 MHz in 100 microseconds requires beta_c ~ 6.3e12 rad/s^2. The paper uses 1e12 s^-2 for the polarization controller, so the 100 MHz claim in Fig. 14 is inconsistent with that chirp unless the acceleration time is longer or the chirp is higher.

None of these are fatal to the underlying concept. The optical centrifuge is a known, proven tool for molecules, and the adiabatic-dragging condition is standard. The paper is an honest extension to nanoparticles, and the experimental section is clearly labeled as initial work. It deserves serious refereeing, but the referee should demand a corrected Eq. (17), the missing particle parameters, and a consistent chirp value for the experimental section.

Send it to peer review.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes and analyzes an optical centrifuge for levitated anisotropic nanoparticles: the linear polarization of a tightly focused tweezer beam is chirped so that the induced-dipole potential adiabatically drags the particle's long axis to high rotation rates. The authors derive a Hamiltonian for a symmetric nanorotor, introduce the accelerated-frame phase θ = 2α − β_c t^2, obtain the stability parameter ψ = β_c/a0 and the condition |ψ| < 1, and illustrate the scheme with a 100 MHz example. They simulate the full Euler-angle dynamics with gas damping and characterize an electro-optic polarization controller; the measured Stokes parameters are then used in simulations of a 100 µs drive toward about 100 MHz.

Significance. If the central claim is correct, the paper offers a practical route to well-defined multi-MHz rotation of mesoscopic rotors, with applications to quantum rotation tests, the Barnett effect, and the quantum tennis-racket effect. The phase-space stability analysis, the inclusion of gas damping via stochastic equations, and the calibration protocol for the EOSpace modulator are useful, and the comparison with the molecular centrifuge analogy is apt. The numerical simulations appear to test the same equations consistently, and I see no circular fitting to the desired result. However, the quantitative 100 MHz claim is not independently checkable as printed, and the central acceleration formula needs correction.

major comments (3)

[Section IV, Eqs. (12)–(19)] Equation (17), a0 = IV(χ1−χ3)/(2cε0J1), is dimensionally inconsistent and does not follow from Eq. (3). At the beam centre with |u|² = 1, a direct re-derivation from Eq. (3) with the intensity convention used in Eq. (15) gives a0 = VIΔχ/(2cJ1) or VIΔχ/(cJ1) depending on whether I denotes peak or average intensity; in neither case does the factor 1/ε0 appear. Since ψ = βc/a0 and the quoted numbers a0 = 8.85×10^12 rad/s² and ψ = 0.68 in Section IV come from Eq. (17), the 100 MHz example cannot be checked. The manuscript also never states V, χ1−χ3, or J1 for the bipyramidal nanorotor; with the printed formula the quoted a0 would require VΔχ/J1 ≈ 0.22 m³/(kg m²), which for solid densities corresponds to a macroscopic object, not a nanoparticle. Please correct the formula and provide the particle parameters used in the example and simulations.
[Section IV, Eqs. (12)–(19)] The central stability condition |ψ| < 1 rests on Eqs. (12)–(19), but these are stated without derivation. In particular, the reduction of Eq. (5) to aα = a0 sin(βct² − 2α) for β = π/2, the transformation θ = 2α − βct², and the form dη/dT = −2(a0/βc) sin θ − 2 should be shown explicitly, since the factors of 2 and the signs determine the critical-angle equation sin θc = −ψ. Please include the intermediate steps so the pendulum analogy leading to Eq. (21) is verifiable.
[Section VI, Figs. 13 and 14] The experimental chirp and the claimed final frequency are mutually inconsistent. Figure 13 applies a chirp βc = 10^12 s⁻² and Fig. 14 reports acceleration over 100 µs; this yields Δω = 10^8 rad/s, which is about 16 MHz if expressed as a rotation frequency f = ω/2π, not 100 MHz. Section IV has the same factor-of-2π ambiguity: 6×10^12 s⁻² × 0.11 ms = 6.6×10^8 rad/s, which gives about 105 MHz only when interpreted as f = ω/2π. Please define f and ω unambiguously and adjust the chirp, duration, or claimed final frequency consistently.

minor comments (5)

[Section III, Eq. (4)] Equation (4) uses both w(z) and ω(z) for the beam-radius function; please unify the notation.
[Section VI, text and Fig. 8 caption] There are several typos: 'polairzation' in Section VI, 'isimulations' in the Fig. 8 caption, and 'LiNbO2' should be 'LiNbO3' in the Fig. 9 caption.
[Section VII, text after Eq. (27)] The quantity Jα = 6.6×10^-34 kg m²/s is given units of angular momentum, but a moment of inertia should have units kg m²; please correct the units.
[Section VI, Fig. 12] The angle αpolar = cos⁻¹(S1/√(S1²+S2²)) is not single-valued over the full 2π range; the sorting procedure should specify the quadrant, for example by using atan2(S2, S1).
[Section V, Eqs. (25)–(26)] The coefficients βtr and βrot are introduced but their values or explicit formulas are not given; please state what values were used in the damped simulations reported in Fig. 8.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the accelerated-frame stability criterion is derived algebraically from the Hamiltonian, and the self-citations are non-load-bearing; the main issue is an uncheckable and dimensionally inconsistent expression for a0, which is a correctness concern, not circularity.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Starting from the Hamiltonian (Eqs. 2-6), the paper obtains equations of motion (Eqs. 9-10) and, for beta = pi/2, the single-axis equation a_alpha = a0 sin(beta_c t^2 - 2 alpha) (Eq. 16). The transformation theta = 2 alpha - beta_c t^2, T = sqrt(beta_c) t turns this into the pendulum equation d eta/dT = -2(a0/beta_c) sin theta - 2 (Eq. 19). Setting eta = 0 and d eta/dT = 0 gives sin theta_c = -psi with psi = beta_c/a0, and the real-angle condition |psi| < 1 follows from requiring a real critical angle. Nothing here is defined in terms of the 100-MHz target; the stability boundary follows algebraically from the pendulum equation. The simulations (Figs. 4-8, 14) integrate the same Hamiltonian/stochastic equations, so they are internal consistency checks rather than independent predictions, which is not a circular defect. Self-citations are non-load-bearing: [41] is used only as an analogy to a chirped-lattice equation already derived in the text, and [15] supports the background assumption that 1-K initial cooling is achievable. The main checkability concern is Eq. (17): as printed, a0 = I V (chi1 - chi3)/(2 c epsilon0 J1) does not have the dimensions of an angular acceleration, and the volume, susceptibility anisotropy, and moment of inertia used for the 100-MHz example are not stated, so a0 = 8.85 x 10^12 rad/s^2 cannot be independently reproduced from the printed formula. That is a correctness/transparency problem, not circularity: the 100-MHz claim is not produced by substituting the target frequency back into the derivation.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new physical entities are introduced. The central claim rests on the gradient-only Hamiltonian, the symmetric-top model, and the chosen trap and particle parameters that set a0.

free parameters (3)

Chirp rate beta_c = 6 x 10^12 rad/s^2 (theory), 10^12 s^-2 (experiment)
Chosen to satisfy the stability condition psi < 1; the experimental section uses a different value, creating an inconsistency with the 100 MHz in 100 microseconds claim.
Peak angular acceleration a0 = 8.85 x 10^12 rad/s^2
Computed from Eq. (17) but the nanorotor volume, susceptibility anisotropy chi1-chi3, and moment of inertia J1 are not given; the value is stated without showing the inputs.
Initial orientation and temperature = theta0 near theta_c = -0.74 rad, beta0 = pi/2 + 0.05 rad, gamma0 = -1 rad, T = 1 K
Simulations choose the rotor near the critical point and cooled to 1 K; these are demanded initial conditions for the adiabatic following.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The nanorotor is small enough that scattering forces can be neglected.
Section III first paragraph; the Hamiltonian includes only the gradient force. If the particle is not sub-wavelength, scattering torque changes the dynamics.
domain assumption The rotor is a symmetric top with chi1 = chi2 and J1 = J2.
Used to reduce the equations of motion to Eqs. (12)-(14). Most fabricated nanorotors may approximate this, but it is an assumption.
domain assumption The optical field is a focused Gaussian beam with a given spatial profile (Eq. 4).
The trap potential is computed from this profile; aberrations or non-Gaussian structure would change the torque landscape.
standard math Stochastic collisions are modeled with Stratonovich integrals and damping coefficients from Cavalleri et al.
Borrowed from the literature; used for the pressure-dependent simulations.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical centrifuge for nanoparticles." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZZ5G2ZP6

@misc{pith2026250616134,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical centrifuge for nanoparticles},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZZ5G2ZP6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.16134}
}

abstract

We study the creation of an optical centrifuge for the controlled rotation of levitated nanorotors within an optical tweezer. The optical centrifuge is created by rapidly rotating the linear polarization of the tightly focused optical field used to form an optical trap. We show that nanorotors, formed by anisotropic nanoparticles levitated within the trap, can be accelerated to well-defined rotational rates in excess of 100 MHz over durations of hundreds of microseconds. The initial conditions required for stable acceleration, based on optical trap properties and the anisotropic susceptibility of the nanorotor are established, and confirmed by numerical simulations. We also present initial experiments that have developed tools for the rapid angular acceleration of the polarization vector of the linearly polarized beam that is required to create the centrifuge. We show that over the acceleration durations in the 100 $\upmu$s range, high rotational speeds could be achieved in modest vacuum.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.16134 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3: The phase-space ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** FIG. 7: Plot of the dynamics of the nanorotor in the accel [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (7 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5: Rotational angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6: The rotational angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9: A schematic diagram of an electro-optic polarization [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10: Stokes parameters ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11: The interpolated voltage maps with 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_11.png]

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13: (a) The variation of voltage with chirp 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14: (a) The rotational angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

Roto-translational optomechanics
quant-ph 2025-07 accept novelty 3.0 of 10

A comprehensive review of the coupled rotational and translational motion of levitated nanoparticles, with a classical-to-quantum theoretical framework and a survey of experiments and applications.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

47 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[1]

Deli´ c, M

U. Deli´ c, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V. Vuleti´ c, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, Science 367, 892 (2020), ISSN 0036-8075, 1095-9203, URL https://www. science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba3993

doi:10.1126/science.aba3993 2020
[2]

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 Physics (2023), ISSN 1745-2481, URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41567-023-01956-1

doi:10.1038/s41567-023-01956-1 2023
[3]

Magrini, P

L. Magrini, P. Rosenzweig, C. Bach, A. Deutschmann- Olek, S. G. Hofer, S. Hong, N. Kiesel, A. Kugi, and M. Aspelmeyer, Nature 595, 373 (2021), ISSN 1476-4687, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03602-3

doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03602-3 2021
[4]

Tebbenjohanns, M

F. Tebbenjohanns, M. L. Mattana, M. Rossi, M. Frim- mer, and L. Novotny, Nature 595, 378 (2021)

2021
[5]

Ranfagni, K

A. Ranfagni, K. Børkje, F. Marino, and F. Marin, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033051 (2022), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.033051

doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.033051 2022
[6]

Kamba and K

M. Kamba and K. Aikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 183602 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.131.183602

work page 2023
[7]

G. F. M. Tomassi, D. Veldhuizen, B. Melo, D. Can- doli, A. Riera-Campeny, O. Romero-Isart, N. Meyer, and R. Quidant, Accelerated state expansion of a nanoparti- cle in a dark inverted potential(2025), 2503.20707, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20707

arXiv 2025
[8]

Gonzalez-Ballestero, M

C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, M. Aspelmeyer, L. Novotny, R. Quidant, and O. Romero- Isart, Science 374, eabg3027 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abg3027, URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ science.abg3027

doi:10.1126/science.abg3027 2021

Show all 47 references

[9]

S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ul- bricht, M. Toroˇ s, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. Kim, and G. Milburn, Physical Review Letters 119, 240401 (2017), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.119.240401

2017
[10]

S. Bose, I. Fuentes, A. A. Geraci, S. M. Khan, S. Qvar- fort, M. Rademacher, M. Rashid, M. Toroˇ s, H. Ul- bricht, and C. C. Wanjura, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 015003 (2025), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/RevModPhys.97.015003

2025
[11]

T. M. Hoang, Y. Ma, J. Ahn, J. Bang, F. Robicheaux, Z.-Q. Yin, and T. Li, Physical Review Letters 117 (2016), ISSN 1079-7114, URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.117.123604

2016
[12]

Kamba, R

M. Kamba, R. Shimizu, and K. Aikawa, Nature Commu- nications 14, 7943 (2023), ISSN 2041-1723, URL https: //www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-43745-7

2023
[13]

Rashid, M

M. Rashid, M. Toroˇ s, A. Setter, and H. Ulbricht, Physi- cal Review Letters 121, 253601 (2018), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.121.253601

2018
[14]

P. F. Staanum, K. Højbjerre, P. S. Skyt, A. K. Hansen, and M. Drewsen, Nature Physics 6, 271 (2010), ISSN 1745-2473, 1745-2481, URL https://www.nature.com/ articles/nphys1604

2010
[15]

Pontin, H

A. Pontin, H. Fu, M. Toroˇ s, T. S. Monteiro, and P. F. Barker, Nature Physics pp. 1–6 (2023), ISSN 1745-2481, publisher: Nature Publishing Group, URL https://www. nature.com/articles/s41567-023-02006-6

2023
[16]

J. Ahn, Z. Xu, J. Bang, P. Ju, X. Gao, and T. Li, Nature Nanotechnology 15, 89 (2020), ISSN 1748-3395, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-019-0605-9

2020 doi
[17]

J. Bang, T. Seberson, P. Ju, J. Ahn, Z. Xu, X. Gao, F. Robicheaux, and T. Li, Physical Review Re- search 2, 043054 (2020), publisher: American Physi- cal Society, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevResearch.2.043054

2020
[18]

J. Gao, F. van der Laan, J. A. Zieli´ nska, A. Mili- taru, L. Novotny, and M. Frimmer, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033009 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevResearch.6.033009

2024
[19]

Dania, O

L. Dania, O. S. Kremer, J. Piotrowski, D. Candoli, J. Vijayan, O. Romero-Isart, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, L. Novotny, and M. Frimmer, High-purity quantum op- tomechanics at room temperature (2024), 2412.14117, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2412.14117

2024 arXiv
[20]

B. A. Stickler, B. Papendell, S. Kuhn, B. Schrinski, J. Millen, M. Arndt, and K. Hornberger, New Jour- nal of Physics 20, 122001 (2018), ISSN 1367-2630, publisher: IOP Publishing, URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/1367-2630/aaece4

2018
[21]

B. A. Stickler, K. Hornberger, and M. S. Kim, Nature Reviews Physics 3, 589 (2021), ISSN 2522-5820, number: 8 Publisher: Nature Publishing Group, URL https:// www.nature.com/articles/s42254-021-00335-0

2021
[22]

Y. Ma, K. E. Khosla, B. A. Stickler, and M. Kim, Phys- ical Review Letters 125, 053604 (2020), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.053604

2020 doi
[24]

T. J. Michael, H. M. Ogden, and A. S. Mullin, The Jour- nal of Chemical Physics 154, 134307 (2021), ISSN 0021- 9606, 1089-7690, URL https://pubs.aip.org/aip/jcp/ article/1065576

2021
[26]

A. A. Milner, J. A. Fordyce, I. MacPhail-Bartley, W. Wasserman, V. Milner, I. Tutunnikov, and I. S. Averbukh, Physical Review Letters 122, 223201 (2019), ISSN 0031-9007, 1079-7114, URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.223201

2019 doi
[27]

MacPhail-Bartley, W

I. MacPhail-Bartley, W. W. Wasserman, A. A. Mil- ner, and V. Milner, Review of Scientific Instruments 11 91, 045122 (2020), ISSN 0034-6748, 1089-7623, URL https://pubs.aip.org/aip/rsi/article/1033099

2020
[28]

R. W. Minck, E. E. Hagenlocker, and W. G. Rado, Phys- ical Review Letters 17, 229 (1966), publisher: American Physical Society, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.17.229

1966
[29]

Microwave Spectroscopy - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/ chemistry/microwave-spectroscopy
[30]

Rotational-Raman Spectrum - an overview| ScienceDi- rect Topics, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/ topics/chemistry/rotational-raman-spectrum
[31]

Korobenko, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51, 203001 (2018), ISSN 0953-4075, publisher: IOP Publishing, URL https://doi.org/10

A. Korobenko, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 51, 203001 (2018), ISSN 0953-4075, publisher: IOP Publishing, URL https://doi.org/10. 1088/1361-6455/aadd56

2018
[32]

R. A. Beth, Phys. Rev. 50, 115 (1936), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.50.115

1936 doi
[33]

M. E. J. Friese, T. A. Nieminen, N. R. Hecken- berg, and H. Rubinsztein-Dunlop, Nature 394, 348–350 (1998), ISSN 1476-4687, URL http://dx.doi.org/10. 1038/28566

1998
[35]

Reimann, M

R. Reimann, M. Doderer, E. Hebestreit, R. Diehl, M. Frimmer, D. Windey, F. Tebbenjohanns, and L. Novotny, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 033602 (2018), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 121.033602

2018 doi
[36]

Arita, M

Y. Arita, M. Mazilu, and K. Dholakia, Nature Communi- cations 4 (2013), ISSN 2041-1723, URL http://dx.doi. org/10.1038/ncomms3374

2013 doi
[37]

Karczmarek, J

J. Karczmarek, J. Wright, P. Corkum, and M. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 82, 3420 (1999), URL https://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.82.3420

1999 doi
[38]

Stapelfeldt and T

H. Stapelfeldt and T. Seideman, Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 543 (2003), publisher: American Physi- cal Society, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ RevModPhys.75.543

2003
[39]

T. M. Hoang, Y. Ma, J. Ahn, J. Bang, F. Ro- bicheaux, Z.-Q. Yin, and T. Li, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 123604 (2016), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.117.123604

2016
[40]

Toroˇ s, M

M. Toroˇ s, M. Rashid, and H. Ulbricht, Physical Review A, 98(5), 053803 (2018)

2018
[41]

P. F. Barker and M. N. Shneider, Physical Review A 64, 033408 (2001), ISSN 1050-2947, 1094-1622, URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.64.033408

2001 doi
[42]

Khodorkovsky, U

Y. Khodorkovsky, U. Steinitz, J.-M. Hartmann, and I. S. Averbukh, Nature Communications 6, 7791 (2015)

2015
[43]

D. S. Lemons and V. Ambegaokar, Amer- ican Journal of Physics 71, 191 (2003), ISSN 0002-9505, 1943-2909, URL https: //pubs.aip.org/ajp/article/71/2/191/1055925/ An-Introduction-to-Stochastic-Processes-in-Physics

2003
[44]

Cavalleri, G

A. Cavalleri, G. Ciani, R. Dolesi, M. Hueller, D. Ni- colodi, D. Tombolato, S. Vitale, P. Wass, and W. We- ber, Physics Letters A 374, 3365 (2010), ISSN 03759601, URL https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/ retrieve/pii/S0375960110007279

2010
[45]

Dania, D

L. Dania, D. S. Bykov, M. Knoll, P. Mestres, and T. E. Northup, Physical Review Research 3, 013018 (2021)

2021
[46]

com/polarization-controller

Polarization Controllers, URL https://www.eospace. com/polarization-controller
[47]

Lithium niobate polarization controller (2003), URL http://www.hanamuraoptics.com/device/EOSPACE/ PC030123_EO.pdf

2003
[48]

Hidayat, Ph.D

A. Hidayat, Ph.D. thesis, Universitat Paderborn. Pader- born (2008)

2008
[49]

J. Ahn, Z. Xu, J. Bang, Y.-H. Deng, T. M. Hoang, Q. Han, R.-M. Ma, and T. Li, Physical Review Let- ters 121, 033603 (2018), publisher: American Physi- cal Society, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.121.033603

2018
[50]

K. Zeng, X. Xu, Y. Wu, X. Wu, and D. Xiao, Microsys- tems ; Nanoengineering 10 (2024), ISSN 2055-7434, URL http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41378-024-00726-0

2024 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Deli´ c, M

U. Deli´ c, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V. Vuleti´ c, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, Science 367, 892 (2020), ISSN 0036-8075, 1095-9203, URL https://www. science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aba3993

doi:10.1126/science.aba3993 2020

[2] [2]

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 Physics (2023), ISSN 1745-2481, URLhttps://doi.org/ 10.1038/s41567-023-01956-1

doi:10.1038/s41567-023-01956-1 2023

[3] [3]

Magrini, P

L. Magrini, P. Rosenzweig, C. Bach, A. Deutschmann- Olek, S. G. Hofer, S. Hong, N. Kiesel, A. Kugi, and M. Aspelmeyer, Nature 595, 373 (2021), ISSN 1476-4687, URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03602-3

doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03602-3 2021

[4] [4]

Tebbenjohanns, M

F. Tebbenjohanns, M. L. Mattana, M. Rossi, M. Frim- mer, and L. Novotny, Nature 595, 378 (2021)

2021

[5] [5]

Ranfagni, K

A. Ranfagni, K. Børkje, F. Marino, and F. Marin, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033051 (2022), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.4.033051

doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.033051 2022

[6] [6]

Kamba and K

M. Kamba and K. Aikawa, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 183602 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.131.183602

work page 2023

[7] [7]

G. F. M. Tomassi, D. Veldhuizen, B. Melo, D. Can- doli, A. Riera-Campeny, O. Romero-Isart, N. Meyer, and R. Quidant, Accelerated state expansion of a nanoparti- cle in a dark inverted potential(2025), 2503.20707, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20707

arXiv 2025

[8] [8]

Gonzalez-Ballestero, M

C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, M. Aspelmeyer, L. Novotny, R. Quidant, and O. Romero- Isart, Science 374, eabg3027 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.abg3027, URL https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/ science.abg3027

doi:10.1126/science.abg3027 2021