Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Cooling of an optically levitated nanoparticle via measurement-free coherent feedback

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 This paper reports measurement-free coherent optical feedback cooling of a levitated nanoparticle, with an all-optical delayed loop reaching about 700 microkelvin and a few hundred phonons.

desk verdict Coherent feedback cooling of a levitated nanoparticle works and is directly measured; the phase-noise-limited model is plausible but leans on fitted parameters and an in-loop noise extraction that may conflate detector noise. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21341 v2 pith:YG4WQCOP submitted 2025-06-26 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Bruno Melo , Daniel Veldhuizen , Gregoire F. M. Tomassi , Nadine Meyer , Romain Quidant This is my paper
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords coherentfeedbacklevitatedoptomechanicscoolingphononoccupationphasenoiseopticaltrappingnanoparticlecolddamping
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 paper reports cooling the center-of-mass motion of an optically levitated nanoparticle with a coherent feedback loop that never measures the particle: backward-scattered light is delayed by a 1.3 km fiber and sent back onto the trap, where it interferes with the trapping beam and produces a velocity-dependent force. At a pressure near $3\times10^{-7}$ mbar the authors measure a minimum effective temperature of $705\pm133\,\mu$K, corresponding to $344\pm55$ phonons, with the cooling controlled by the feedback phase and delay. They derive an effective-temperature expression that includes phase noise from the delay line and show that this noise, rather than detection backaction or electronic feedback noise, sets the current cooling floor. If the result holds, measurement-free coherent feedback becomes a practical route to quantum control of levitated particles, and the paper's projections put ground-state occupation within reach after phase-noise reduction and smaller particles.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is the coherent optical feedback loop itself: backward-scattered light from the particle is collected, sent through $L\approx1.3$ km of single-mode fiber (delay $\tau\approx6.34\,\mu$s), and focused back onto the particle counter-propagating to the trapping beam. The delayed light's phase carries the past position $z_p(t-\tau)$, so the interference with the trapping beam shifts the trap equilibrium to $z_{\mathrm{eq}}(t)=\beta z_p(t-\tau)$, generating a delayed force. For $\tau\Omega\approx\pi/2$ this force is proportional to velocity and adds damping $\Gamma_c=\beta\Omega\sin(\Omega\tau)$, with the sign set by $\varphi_0$. The companion theoretical result is the effective-temperature formula (3), whose phase-noise contribution $\sigma_c=m\beta\Omega^2\sigma_\phi/B$ creates an optimal feedback strength and a minimum temperature; the phase-noise amplitude $\sigma_\phi$ is extracted from the in-loop detector's noise floor and is what limits the observed cooling.

What would settle it

Measure the phase noise of the delayed feedback beam independently (for example by phase-locking the loop and recording phase fluctuations at the mechanical frequency) and compare it with the value extracted from the in-loop noise floor at $\Omega$; if the two disagree, or if swapping in a phase-noise-compensated delay line of the same delay does not lower $T_{\mathrm{eff,min}}$ as Eq. (5) predicts, the white-phase-noise model is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that an all-optical, measurement-free coherent feedback loop can cool the center-of-mass motion of a levitated nanoparticle, and that the loop's phase noise fixes the attainable temperature. The authors show experimentally that changing the feedback phase $\varphi_0$ and delay $\tau$ switches between cooling and heating, with the added damping $\Gamma_c=\beta\Omega\sin(\Omega\tau)$; at a delay near $\pi/(2\Omega)$ the delayed force is velocity-dependent. They measure $T_{\mathrm{eff,min}}\simeq705\pm133\,\mu$K at $\Gamma_c\simeq2\pi\times250$ Hz and $p\simeq3\times10^{-7}$ mbar, corresponding to $n=344\pm55$ phonons, with coherent feedback providing about ten times the auxiliary electrical cold damping at that point. Their model, Eq. (3), includes gas collisions, photon recoil, and phase noise, predicts an optimal feedback strength $\beta_{\mathrm{opt}}=\sqrt{\sigma_m^2+\sigma_r^2}\,B/(m\Omega^2\sigma_\phi)$, and yields the minimum temperature $T_{\mathrm{eff,min}}=\sigma_\phi\Omega\sqrt{\sigma_m^2+\sigma_r^2}/(k_B B\sin(\Omega\tau))$, which the measured leveling-off of $T_{\mathrm{eff}}$ follows.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the phase-noise amplitude $\sigma_\phi$ read off the in-loop detector's flat noise floor is the same white phase noise that actually drives the particle through the delayed optical force; if part of that floor is detector noise or the noise is colored, the predicted minimum temperature and its scaling with $\sigma_\phi$ are wrong.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Coherent feedback can alternately cool or heat the same levitated particle by changing the feedback phase, giving a measurement-free control knob over the mechanical dynamics.
  • The cooling floor is set by the delay line's phase noise rather than by detection backaction or electronics, so reducing $\sigma_\phi$ should lower the minimum phonon occupation.
  • With a 30 dB phase-noise reduction, a particle 2.5 times smaller, and a pressure of $1\times10^{-8}$ mbar, the paper's projection gives roughly 0.9 phonons, i.e. near the motional ground state.
  • At the measured minimum, the coherent feedback contributes $\Gamma_c\simeq10\Gamma_d$, so the all-optical loop, not the auxiliary electrical cold damping, is the dominant cooling mechanism.
  • The same measurement-free loop is proposed for dissipative and nonreciprocal dynamics and for motional entanglement, because it avoids the decoherence of photodetection and electronic processing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: replace the 1.3 km fiber with a shorter or phase-noise-compensated delay of the same optical length and check whether the minimum temperature falls according to Eq. (5); because the paper assumes $\sigma_\phi\propto L$, this would isolate the phase-noise mechanism.
  • The paper does not compare its 344 phonons with the ground-state occupations already reached by measurement-based feedback in the same platform; a fair comparison of coherence retention at equal phonon number would show whether the measurement-free scheme's preserved correlations give a practical advantage.
  • The model treats phase noise as white and additive; a direct spectral measurement of the delayed beam's phase fluctuations at the mechanical frequency, independent of the in-loop displacement noise floor, would confirm or reject that treatment.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental demonstration of coherent (measurement-free) optical feedback cooling of an optically levitated nanoparticle. The backward-scattered light is delayed by a 1.3-km fiber and re-injected counter-propagating to the trapping beam, creating a delayed optical force that can cool or heat the center-of-mass motion depending on the feedback phase and delay. The authors measure effective temperatures down to 705 ± 133 µK (about 344 ± 55 phonons) at p ≈ 3 × 10^-7 mbar, observe a plateau in T_eff versus feedback gain, and attribute this plateau to phase noise in the delay line. A Langevin model (Eqs. 1–5) yields an expression for the minimum temperature and a projection that about 0.9 phonons could be reached with reduced phase noise, smaller particles, and improved vacuum.

Significance. If the phase-noise attribution is correct, the result is significant: it extends coherent feedback control, previously demonstrated in cavity-optomechanical and atomic-spin systems, to levitated nanoparticles, and it avoids measurement backaction in the feedback loop. The central cooling demonstration is directly measured and does not depend on the theoretical model; the phase-dependent cooling/heating data (Fig. 2) and the delay-dependent behavior (Fig. 3) are convincing and provide clear evidence of coherent feedback control. The paper also offers a useful noise-budget framework for future experiments. However, the specific quantitative claim that the observed plateau is phase-noise-limited, and the agreement between Eq. 5 and the measured minimum temperature, rest on a single in-loop noise-floor extraction that may conflate detector noise with feedback phase noise. The ground-state projection therefore needs stronger experimental support before the paper's central message can be fully accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Experimental implementation, Fig. 4(b)] The identification S_zz,IL(Ω) ≈ 2σ_ϕ²/B² = 4 × 10^-24 m²/Hz is used to set the phase-noise amplitude that enters the force noise σ_c = mβΩ²σ_ϕ/B in Eq. 3. This PSD is measured with the in-loop heterodyne detector, which includes shot noise and electronic noise that do not exert forces on the particle. If those contributions are non-negligible, σ_ϕ is overestimated, and the apparent agreement between the measured T_eff,min ≈ 705 µK and the model's 847 µK does not validate the phase-noise-limited interpretation. Please provide a control measurement, such as the in-loop noise floor with the feedback beam blocked while the detector remains active, or an injected phase modulation of known amplitude, to calibrate σ_ϕ separately from detector noise.
  2. [Eq. 3 and Discussion] The model treats χ_c(t) as delta-correlated, i.e., σ_ϕ is assumed white. Delay-line phase noise is generally colored, often with 1/f-type or technical contributions. In Eq. 3 the phase-noise heating term is evaluated at the mechanical frequency Ω; for colored noise, the relevant spectral density at the motional sidebands would differ, changing the predicted scaling of T_min with Ω and with delay-line length. The ground-state projection of 0.9 phonons relies on this scaling. Please justify the white-noise assumption, either with a measured phase-noise spectrum over the relevant bandwidth or by explicitly stating the frequency range over which σ_ϕ is constant.
  3. [Eq. 5 and Fig. 4(a)] The 'prediction' from Eq. 5 is not an independent prediction: β_opt and T_min are computed using σ_ϕ extracted from the in-loop noise floor, β obtained from the Eq. 6 fit, and Γ_0 from the same experimental run. Thus the dotted line at 847 µK is a self-consistency check rather than a falsifiable prediction. Please state explicitly which parameters are fixed from independent calibrations, report the fitted values and their uncertainties, and show how the confidence interval of the green curve in Fig. 4(a) propagates to the inferred T_min. This is important because the green curve is a multi-parameter fit to Eq. 3 and could absorb systematic errors in σ_ϕ or β.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Introduction, Eq. 1] The sign convention for β and Γ_c is not stated explicitly. The text says Γ_c = βΩ sin(Ωτ) and that cooling corresponds to Γ_c > 0, but the sign of β is not defined; please specify the sign convention so the reader can verify the phase condition τ = π/(2Ω).
  2. [Experimental implementation, Fig. 3(c)] The text says each data point in Fig. 3(c) is the median of T_eff values below T0 + 2Σ(T0), while the figure caption says it is the average of five measurements. Please reconcile these statements and clarify the statistical meaning of the blue shaded regions.
  3. [General] The term 'measurement-free' is potentially misleading because the experimental setup uses heterodyne detection and electronic cold damping for stabilization. It would help to state explicitly that 'measurement-free' refers to the feedback loop that generates the cooling force, not to the entire apparatus.
  4. [General] There are several typographical and grammatical issues, including 'Aknowledgments', 'an delay', and inconsistent use of 'the optimum' versus 'optimal'. A careful proofread would improve the presentation.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Measured cooling is genuine and model-independent, but the quantitative 'prediction' of the minimum temperature is partly a self-consistent calculation that reuses the same noise-floor data it is compared against.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Full text, 'Experimental implementation'/'Discussion'; Eq. 5 and Fig. 4(a)-(b)]
    "The displacement noise at Ω for β_opt is extracted from a fit to the noise floor of the IL detector to S_zz,IL(Ω)≈2σ_ϕ^2/B^2=4×10^-24 m^2/Hz (dashed line), corresponding to the phase noise contribution... According to Eq. 5, the minimum temperature (blue dotted line) equals T_min=847µK, which is in good agreement with the experiment."

    Eq. 5 gives T_eff,min in terms of σ_ϕ, and σ_ϕ is not independently measured but is extracted from the very noise floor that, on the phase-noise-dominated feedback model, sets the minimum temperature. The model (Eq. 3) and the fit to the IL noise floor are calibrated on the same experiment, so the agreement between T_min=847µK from Eq. 5 and the measured 705±133µK confirms self-consistency of the assumed phase-noise model rather than an out-of-sample prediction. The measured cooling curve and the 705µK datum remain directly measured and unaffected.

  2. other [Full text, 'Theory'; Eqs. 3 and 5]
    "The effective temperature is given by T_eff = (mΩ^2/2k_B)[(σ_m^2+σ_r^2)/(m^2Ω^2(Γ_0+Γ_c)) + (σ_ϕ^2Ω^2/B^2)(β^2/(Γ_0+Γ_c))]... there exists an optimal feedback strength β_opt=√(σ_m^2+σ_r^2)B/(mΩ^2σ_ϕ) for which a minimum temperature T_eff,min = σ_ϕΩ√(σ_m^2+σ_r^2)/(k_B B sin(Ωτ)) is achieved."

    Eq. 5 is derived from Eq. 3 by algebraic minimization, so the 'prediction' T_eff,min is fully determined by the same four parameters (σ_ϕ, σ_m, σ_r, B, Ω, τ) that enter the fitted curves of Fig. 4(a). Nothing in Eq. 5 is measured independently of Eq. 3, so the blue dotted line merely evaluates the envelope of Eq. 3 at its own minimum using parameters taken from the same dataset. The circularity is partial: the experimental observation of a plateau and its location are independent data, but the quoted 'prediction' is not an independent test of the model.

full rationale

The central experimental claim — measurement-free coherent feedback cooling of a levitated nanoparticle to 705±133µK (344±55 phonons) — is directly measured from the out-of-loop PSD area and does not depend on the theoretical model, so the paper's headline result has independent grounding. The theory itself is a standard damped-oscillator plus phase-noise model (Eqs. 1-4) with no self-citation carrying the derivation, and the delay/phase dependence of cooling (Figs. 2-3) is an honest experimental test with a fitted delay τ'=12.9±0.04µs matching the expected 12.7µs. The main circularity concern is confined to the 'prediction' of the minimum temperature: σ_ϕ is extracted from the in-loop noise floor of the very cooled system (S_zz,IL≈2σ_ϕ^2/B^2), and then Eq. 5, algebraically derived from Eq. 3, is compared with the measured minimum. This is a self-consistent reconstruction of the plateau rather than an independent or out-of-sample prediction, and it also depends on the assumption that the IL noise floor at Ω is entirely phase noise rather than heterodyne shot/electronic noise. However, the measured cooling curve and the existence of a minimum are directly observed, and the theoretical framework is not itself justified by self-citation. I therefore assign a moderate score of 3: the core result is real, but the quantitative 'prediction' of T_eff,min is partially circular by construction.

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

The model introduces beta and sigma_phi as free parameters fitted to or extracted from the same experimental data that the model then 'predicts.' The noise model and the linear delayed feedback are domain assumptions, not derived from fundamental theory. No new physical entities are invented.

free parameters (3)
  • beta (feedback coupling) = beta ≈ 4.10e-2 (Fig. 2); beta ≈ (6.18 ± 0.4)e-4 (Fig. 3c)
    Dimensionless coefficient relating delayed position to equilibrium shift, z_eq(t) = beta z_p(t - tau). It absorbs loop efficiency, power ratio, polarization overlap, and NA. Fitted to Eq. 6 and inferred from damping rate.
  • tau' (feedback delay) = 12.9 ± 0.04 µs
    Fitted to Eq. 6; expected 12.7 µs from 1.3 km fiber. Though independently estimated, the fitted value is a free parameter in the model.
  • sigma_phi (phase noise amplitude) = S_zz,IL(Omega) ≈ 2 sigma_phi^2/B^2 = 4e-24 m^2/Hz
    Phase noise amplitude deduced from in-loop detector noise floor. Used in Eq. 3 and Eq. 5 to predict the minimum temperature. Not independently measured outside the feedback loop.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The particle's center-of-mass motion is a damped harmonic oscillator with position-dependent delayed feedback force.
    Eq. 1; the feedback is modeled as z_eq(t) = beta z_p(t - tau), linear in delayed position. This is the core modeling assumption.
  • domain assumption All noise sources (gas collisions, photon recoil, feedback phase noise) are white and mutually independent, with delta-correlated autocorrelations.
    Stated after Eq. 1: 'We assume chi_i(t) to have zero mean and their respective autocorrelation functions to be delta functions.'
  • domain assumption The phase noise of the feedback light adds an effective stochastic force with intensity sigma_c = m beta Omega^2 sigma_phi / B.
    Used in Eq. 1 and Eq. 2; this relation connects optical phase fluctuations to mechanical force and is not derived from first principles in the main text.
  • standard math Equipartition T_eff = m Omega^2 <z_p^2> / k_B relates the measured PSD area to temperature.
    Standard for a harmonic oscillator at steady state; used to extract T_eff from PSDs.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cooling of an optically levitated nanoparticle via measurement-free coherent feedback." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YG4WQCOP

@misc{pith2026250621341,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cooling of an optically levitated nanoparticle via measurement-free coherent feedback},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YG4WQCOP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21341}
}
read the original abstract

We demonstrate coherent, measurement-free optical feedback control of a levitated nanoparticle, achieving phonon occupations down to a few hundred phonons. Unlike measurement-based feedback, this all-optical scheme preserves the correlations between mechanical motion and the feedback signal. Adjustment of the feedback phase and delay provides precise and tunable control over the system dynamics. The ultimate cooling performance is currently limited by phase noise, which we analyze within a theoretical framework that outlines the constraints and prospects for reaching the motional ground state. Our results establish coherent feedback as a powerful tool for quantum control of levitated systems, extending beyond center-of-mass cooling.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21341 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A particle is trapped at the focus of a laser [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. PSD of particle displacement with coherent feed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a)-(b) CoM temperature without phase lock (free￾running ϕ0) leading to random cooling and heating in time. (a) At the resonance frequency Ω/(2π) = 48 kHz with Ωτ ′ > π, strong coherent feedback manifests itself in high maximum and low minimum temperatures due to max(|Γc|) ≫ Γ0. (b) In contrast, the coherent feedback is ineffective for Ω/(2π) = 39 kHz with Ωτ ′ ≈ π leading to a reduced variation in Teff due to |Γc| … view at source ↗

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

  1. Optical Interferometric Readout of a Magnetically Levitated Superconducting Microsphere

    quant-ph 2025-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    First demonstration of direct optical interferometric readout and feedback cooling of a magnetically levitated superconducting microsphere, with about 1 nm/√Hz displacement sensitivity at 3 K.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Fischer, P

    T. Fischer, P. Maunz, P. Pinkse, T. Puppe, and G. Rempe, Feedback on the motion of a single atom in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.88, 163002 (2002)

    work page 2002

  2. [2]

    D. A. Steck, K. Jacobs, H. Mabuchi, T. Bhattacharya, and S. Habib, Quantum feedback control of atomic mo- tion in an optical cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 223004 (2004)

    2004

  3. [4]

    D. J. Wilson, V. Sudhir, N. Piro, R. Schilling, A. Ghadimi, and T. J. Kippenberg, Measurement-based control of a mechanical oscillator at its thermal decoher- ence rate, Nature524, 325 (2015)

    work page 2015

  4. [5]

    Poggio, C

    M. Poggio, C. L. Degen, H. J. Mamin, and D. Rugar, Feedback cooling of a cantilever’s fundamental mode be- low 5 mk, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 017201 (2007)

    2007

  5. [6]

    Tewari,Advanced control of aircraft, spacecraft and rockets, Aerospace Series (Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, 2011)

    A. Tewari,Advanced control of aircraft, spacecraft and rockets, Aerospace Series (Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NJ, 2011)

    work page 2011

  6. [7]

    J. Guo, J. Chang, X. Yao, and S. Gr¨ oblacher, Active- feedback quantum control of an integrated low-frequency mechanical resonator, Nat. Commun.14, 4721 (2023)

    work page 2023

  7. [8]

    Rossi, D

    M. Rossi, D. Mason, J. Chen, Y. Tsaturyan, and A. Schliesser, Measurement-based quantum control of mechanical motion, Nature563, 53 (2018)

    2018

  8. [9]

    C. Wang, L. Banniard, L. M. de L´ epinay, and M. A. Sil- lanp¨ a¨ a, Fast feedback control of mechanical motion us- ing circuit optomechanics, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 054091 (2023)

    work page 2023

Show all 55 references
  1. [10]

    T. P. Purdy, R. W. Peterson, and C. A. Regal, Obser- vation of radiation pressure shot noise on a macroscopic object, Science339, 801 (2013)

    2013

  2. [11]

    J. D. Teufel, F. Lecocq, and R. W. Simmonds, Over- whelming thermomechanical motion with microwave ra- diation pressure shot noise, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 013602 (2016)

    2016

  3. [12]

    Genes, D

    C. Genes, D. Vitali, P. Tombesi, S. Gigan, and M. As- pelmeyer, Ground-state cooling of a micromechanical os- cillator: Comparing cold damping and cavity-assisted cooling schemes, Phys. Rev. A77, 033804 (2008)

    2008

  4. [13]

    Lloyd, Coherent quantum feedback, Phys

    S. Lloyd, Coherent quantum feedback, Phys. Rev. A62, 022108 (2000)

    2000

  5. [14]

    S. Iida, M. Yukawa, H. Yonezawa, N. Yamamoto, and A. Furusawa, Experimental demonstration of coherent feedback control on optical field squeezing, IEEE Trans. Autom. Control57, 2045 (2012)

    2012

  6. [15]

    R. J. Nelson, Y. Weinstein, D. Cory, and S. Lloyd, Exper- imental demonstration of fully coherent quantum feed- back, Phys. Rev. Lett.85, 3045 (2000)

    2000

  7. [16]

    T. M. Karg, B. Gouraud, C. T. Ngai, G.-L. Schmid, K. Hammerer, and P. Treutlein, Light-mediated strong coupling between a mechanical oscillator and atomic spins 1 meter apart, Science369, 174 (2020)

    2020

  8. [17]

    Schmid, C

    G.-L. Schmid, C. T. Ngai, M. Ernzer, M. B. Aguilera, T. M. Karg, and P. Treutlein, Coherent feedback cooling of a nanomechanical membrane with atomic spins, Phys. Rev. X12, 011020 (2022)

    2022

  9. [18]

    Hirose and P

    M. Hirose and P. Cappellaro, Coherent feedback control of a single qubit in diamond, Nature532, 77 (2016)

    2016

  10. [19]

    Ernzer, M

    M. Ernzer, M. Bosch Aguilera, M. Brunelli, G.-L. Schmid, T. M. Karg, C. Bruder, P. P. Potts, and P. Treut- lein, Optical coherent feedback control of a mechanical oscillator, Phys. Rev. X13, 021023 (2023)

    2023

  11. [20]

    Dania, D

    L. Dania, D. S. Bykov, F. Goschin, M. Teller, A. Kassid, and T. E. Northup, Ultrahigh quality factor of a levitated nanomechanical oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 133602 (2024)

    2024

  12. [21]

    Rondin, J

    L. Rondin, J. Gieseler, F. Ricci, R. Quidant, C. Dellago, and L. Novotny, Direct measurement of kramers turnover with a levitated nanoparticle, Nat. Nanotechnol.12, 1130 (2017)

    2017

  13. [22]

    Hebestreit, M

    E. Hebestreit, M. Frimmer, R. Reimann, and L. Novotny, Sensing static forces with free-falling nanoparticles, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 063602 (2018)

    2018

  14. [23]

    G. P. Conangla, R. A. Rica, and R. Quidant, Extending vacuum trapping to absorbing objects with hybrid paul- optical traps, Nano Lett.20, 6018 (2020). 6

    2020

  15. [24]

    C. Sun, H. Pi, K. S. Kiang, T. S. Georgescu, J.-Y. Ou, H. Ulbricht, and J. Yan, Tunable on-chip optical traps for levitating particles based on single-layer metasurface, Nanophotonics13, 2791 (2024)

    2024

  16. [25]

    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), arXiv:2503.20707 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Magrini, P

    L. Magrini, P. Rosenzweig, C. Bach, A. Deutschmann- Olek, S. G. Hofer, S. Hong, N. Kiesel, A. Kugi, and M. Aspelmeyer, Real-time optimal quantum control of mechanical motion at room temperature, Nature595, 373 (2021)

    2021

  18. [27]

    Tebbenjohanns, M

    F. Tebbenjohanns, M. L. Mattana, M. Rossi, M. Frim- mer, and L. Novotny, Quantum control of a nanoparticle optically levitated in cryogenic free space, Nature595, 378 (2021)

    2021

  19. [28]

    Kamba and K

    M. Kamba and K. Aikawa, Revealing the velocity un- certainties of a levitated particle in the quantum ground state, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 183602 (2023)

    2023

  20. [29]

    Deli´ c, M

    U. Deli´ c, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V. Vuleti´ c, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, Cooling of a levitated nanoparticle to the motional quantum ground state, Sci- ence367, 892 (2020)

    2020

  21. [30]

    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, Simulta- neous ground-state cooling of two mechanical modes of a levitated nanoparticle, Nat. Phys. (2023)

    2023

  22. [31]

    Ranfagni, K

    A. Ranfagni, K. Børkje, F. Marino, and F. Marin, Two- dimensional quantum motion of a levitated nanosphere, Phys. Rev. Res.4, 033051 (2022)

    2022

  23. [32]

    Dania, O

    L. Dania, O. S. Kremer, J. Piotrowski, D. Can- doli, J. Vijayan, O. Romero-Isart, C. Gonzalez- Ballestero, L. Novotny, and M. Frimmer, High-purity quantum optomechanics at room temperature, (2024), arXiv:2412.14117 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [33]

    G. P. Conangla, F. Ricci, M. T. Cuairan, A. W. Schell, N. Meyer, and R. Quidant, Optimal feedback cooling of a charged levitated nanoparticle with adaptive control, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 223602 (2019)

    2019

  25. [34]

    Tebbenjohanns, M

    F. Tebbenjohanns, M. Frimmer, A. Militaru, V. Jain, and L. Novotny, Cold damping of an optically levitated nanoparticle to microkelvin temperatures, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 223601 (2019)

    2019

  26. [35]

    Vijayan, Z

    J. Vijayan, Z. Zhang, J. Piotrowski, D. Windey, F. van der Laan, M. Frimmer, and L. Novotny, Scalable all-optical cold damping of levitated nanoparticles, Nat. Nanotechnol.18, 49 (2023)

    2023

  27. [36]

    See supplemental material for details on the theoretical description of the coherent feedback mechanism, the ex- perimental setup and the data analysis

  28. [37]

    Gieseler, B

    J. Gieseler, B. Deutsch, R. Quidant, and L. Novotny, Subkelvin parametric feedback cooling of a laser-trapped nanoparticle, Phys. Rev. Lett.109, 103603 (2012)

    2012

  29. [38]

    V. Jain, J. Gieseler, C. Moritz, C. Dellago, R. Quidant, and L. Novotny, Direct measurement of photon recoil from a levitated nanoparticle, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 243601 (2016)

    2016

  30. [39]

    Tebbenjohanns, M

    F. Tebbenjohanns, M. Frimmer, and L. Novotny, Optimal position detection of a dipolar scatterer in a focused field, Phys. Rev. A100, 043821 (2019)

    2019

  31. [40]

    Kamba, H

    M. Kamba, H. Kiuchi, T. Yotsuya, and K. Aikawa, Recoil-limited feedback cooling of single nanoparticles near the ground state in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A103, L051701 (2021)

    2021

  32. [41]

    Lindner, P

    S. Lindner, P. Juschitz, J. Rieser, Y. Y. Fein, M. De- biossac, M. A. Ciampini, M. Aspelmeyer, and N. Kiesel, Hollow-core fiber loading of nanoparticles into ultra-high vacuum, Appl. Phys. Lett.124(2024)

    2024

  33. [42]

    Chao, Z.-X

    Y.-X. Chao, Z.-X. Hua, X.-H. Liang, Z.-P. Yue, C. Jia, L. You, and M. K. Tey, Robust suppression of high- frequency laser phase noise by adaptive pound-drever- hall feedforward, Phys. Rev. Appl.23, L011005 (2025)

    2025

  34. [43]

    Parniak, I

    M. Parniak, I. Galinskiy, T. Zwettler, and E. S. Polzik, High-frequency broadband laser phase noise cancellation using a delay line, Opt. Express29, 6935 (2021)

    2021

  35. [44]

    Pontin, H

    A. Pontin, H. Fu, M. Toroˇ s, T. S. Monteiro, and P. F. Barker, Simultaneous cavity cooling of all six degrees of freedom of a levitated nanoparticle, Nat. Phys.19, 1003 (2023)

    2023

  36. [45]

    J. Gao, F. van der Laan, J. A. Zieli´ nska, A. Militaru, L. Novotny, and M. Frimmer, Feedback cooling a lev- itated nanoparticle’s libration to below 100 phonons, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033009 (2024)

    2024

  37. [46]

    J. Bang, T. Seberson, P. Ju, J. Ahn, Z. Xu, X. Gao, F. Robicheaux, and T. Li, Five-dimensional cooling and nonlinear dynamics of an optically levitated nan- odumbbell, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 043054 (2020)

    2020

  38. [47]

    Lepeshov, N

    S. Lepeshov, N. Meyer, P. Maurer, O. Romero-Isart, and R. Quidant, Levitated optomechanics with meta-atoms, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 233601 (2023)

    2023

  39. [48]

    Afridi, B

    A. Afridi, B. Melo, N. Meyer, and R. Quidant, Control- ling the sign of optical forces using metaoptics, (2025), arXiv:2504.18341 [physics]

    2025 arXiv

  40. [49]

    M. Lee, B. A. Stickler, T. Pertsch, and S. Hong, Inverse microparticle design for enhanced optical trapping and detection efficiency in all six degrees of freedom, (2025), arXiv:2506.01837 [physics]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Dinter, R

    T. Dinter, R. Roberts, T. Volz, M. K. Schmidt, and C. Laplane, Three-dimensional and selective displace- ment sensing of a levitated nanoparticle via spatial mode decomposition, (2024), arXiv:2409.08827 [physics]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [51]

    B. Melo, M. T Cuairan, G. F. M. Tomassi, N. Meyer, and R. Quidant, Vacuum levitation and motion control on chip, Nat. Nanotechnol.19, 1270 (2024)

    2024

  43. [52]

    T. M. Karg, B. Gouraud, P. Treutlein, and K. Ham- merer, Remote hamiltonian interactions mediated by light, Phys. Rev. A99, 063829 (2019)

    2019

  44. [53]

    Metelmann and A

    A. Metelmann and A. A. Clerk, Nonreciprocal photon transmission and amplification via reservoir engineering, Phys. Rev. X5, 021025 (2015)

    2015

  45. [54]

    L. Du, J. Monsel, W. Wieczorek, and J. Splettstoesser, Coherent feedback control for cavity optomechanical sys- tems with a frequency-dependent mirror, Phys. Rev. A 111, 013506 (2025)

    2025

  46. [55]

    J. Li, G. Li, S. Zippilli, D. Vitali, and T. Zhang, En- hanced entanglement of two different mechanical res- onators via coherent feedback, Phys. Rev. A95, 043819 (2017)

    2017

  47. [56]

    Carlon Zambon, M

    N. Carlon Zambon, M. Rossi, M. Frimmer, L. Novotny, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, O. Romero-Isart, and A. Mili- taru, Motional entanglement of remote optically levitated nanoparticles, Phys. Rev. A111, 013521 (2025)

    2025

Pith tools

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