Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Enhancement of the effects due to the Schr\"odinger-Newton equation

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 Periodically modulating the trapping frequency can amplify the Schrödinger-Newton deviation in a levitated oscillator by up to six orders of magnitude.

desk verdict Clever parametric-driving proposal for amplifying the Schrödinger-Newton signature, but the headline six-orders claim rests on an unjustified neglect of thermal-noise-induced correlation terms. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.02845 v1 pith:46APLZOT submitted 2025-07-03 quant-ph

Davide Giordano Ario Altamura , José Luis Gaona-Reyes , Elliot Simcox , Hendrik Ulbricht , Angelo Bassi This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords Schrödinger-NewtonequationsemiclassicalgravitymagneticlevitationparametricfrequencymodulationFloquet-Lyapunovtheorypositionvariancemechanicaloscillatorquantumtesting
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

The Schrödinger-Newton equation adds a nonlinear self-gravitational potential to the Schrödinger equation, but the deviation it produces in a mechanical oscillator is normally far too small to measure. The paper argues that periodically switching the trapping frequency between two values—a square-wave modulation—can amplify that deviation dramatically. For a magnetically levitated particle of $10^{-5}$ kg at 10 K, the difference in position variance with and without the SN term is claimed to grow up to six orders of magnitude larger than in an unmodulated trap, and to become distinguishable with current technology. The mechanism is a parametric resonance: the modulation is tuned near the boundary between stable and unstable Floquet dynamics, a boundary that shifts when the SN term is present. If correct, this gives a concrete experimental route to test semiclassical gravity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Floquet-Lyapunov analysis of the covariance vector $x_t = (V_{xx}, V_{xp}, V_{pp})$, whose time evolution is governed by a periodic matrix $P_t$ whose effective frequency is $\omega_{q,t} = (\omega_t^2 + \omega_{\rm SN}^2)^{1/2}$. The monodromy matrix $L = e^{P_2 t_2} e^{P_1 t_1}$ over one two-step cycle decides stability: eigenvalues of modulus at most 1 mean bounded second moments, while eigenvalues above 1 mean exponential growth. The SN term shifts the boundaries between stable and unstable regions in the $(\alpha,\beta)$ parameter plane, and the protocol selects parameters close to or across such a boundary so that the small $\omega_{\rm SN}$ produces a large difference in $V_{xx}$. The nonlinear SN Hamiltonian is handled by constructing an effective Heisenberg picture, including damping and thermal noise.

What would settle it

Run the protocol with $\beta=2$, $\alpha=1.911$ on a magnetically levitated $10^{-5}$ kg particle cooled near its ground state; if the envelope difference $\Delta V_{xx}$ between standard and SN dynamics does not grow well beyond the unmodulated maximum within the number of cycles shown in Fig. 3, the claim is falsified. A sharper test is to compute the Floquet eigenvalues of $L = e^{P_2 t_2} e^{P_1 t_1}$ with and without $\omega_{\rm SN}$ for the Table I parameters; if the stability boundary is not shifted by the 0.12 Hz SN frequency, the amplification mechanism is absent.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that a time-periodic modulation of the harmonic trap, with the frequency taking value $\omega$ on the first half of each cycle and $\beta\omega$ on the second half, converts the tiny SN-induced frequency shift $\omega_{\rm SN}$ into a large, growing difference in the position variance $V_{xx}$. Working near a Floquet instability edge, with $\beta=2$ and $\alpha=1.911$, the envelope of $\Delta V_{xx} = V_{xx}^0 - V_{xx}^{\rm SN}$ is enhanced by about six orders of magnitude relative to the best unmodulated case. For $\alpha=1.910625$ the dynamics is unstable without the SN term and stable with it, so the two evolutions separate exponentially until the particle escapes the trap after about 10 seconds. The paper treats the SN term through an effective Heisenberg picture and computes the stability of the second moments with Floquet-Lyapunov theory, using parameters compatible with a magnetic Meissner trap with SQUID readout. The conclusion is that standard quantum mechanics and SN dynamics can be told apart by monitoring the position variance under this protocol.

Load-bearing premise

The entire protocol assumes the oscillator begins in a pure mechanical ground state, which for a $10^{-5}$ kg magnetically levitated particle at $T=10$ K has not yet been reached and is expected only within about five years.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In an unmodulated trap the SN-induced change in $V_{xx}$ saturates at a small value; under $\beta=2$, $\alpha=1.911$ modulation it grows over time to roughly $10^6$ times that value.
  • Choosing $\alpha=1.910625$ puts the standard dynamics in an unstable region and the SN dynamics in a stable one, so the two predictions diverge exponentially until the particle leaves a 1-mm trap at about 10 seconds.
  • The protocol uses parameters within reach of magnetic levitation: $M=10^{-5}$ kg, $\omega=5\times 2\pi$ Hz, $T=10$ K, $\gamma_m=0.1$ Hz, with SQUID-based position detection.
  • First moments (mean position and momentum) are unaffected by the SN term, so the trap confinement criterion is the same for both dynamics, leaving the variance as the clean observable.
  • Because the enhancement mechanism is insensitive to the particle's mass, other low-frequency mechanical platforms (clamped optomechanics, torsion pendulums) could in principle run the same protocol, while optical levitation of silica is excluded by the condition $\Delta x_{\rm zp} > V_{xx}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension the paper does not pursue: run the same square-wave protocol on two oscillators with identical trap frequency but different $\omega_{\rm SN}$ (for instance, different mass density) and check that the variance-difference envelopes separate exactly where the stability boundary predicts.
  • The result suggests that any small frequency perturbation to a harmonic oscillator, not only gravity, could be amplified near a Floquet instability, so the protocol might be repurposed for other ultraweak forces or collapse models.
  • The six-orders-of-magnitude number is computed from the envelope extrapolation near the stability edge; in a real experiment, frequency noise and finite temperature will blur the edge, so the practically achievable enhancement is likely lower and should be quantified.
  • Because $V_{xx}$ must stay below $\Delta x_{\rm zp}$ for the SN Hamiltonian to be valid, the unstable-regime strategy is self-limiting: the maximum usable enhancement is set by when the wavefunction's spread reaches the lattice-spacing scale.
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 proposes to amplify the observable consequences of the Schr\"odinger-Newton nonlinearity in a levitated mechanical oscillator by periodically modulating the trapping frequency. The authors derive second-moment equations in the presence of damping and thermal noise, use Floquet-Lyapunov stability maps to identify parameter regions where the SN term changes the envelope of the position variance, and claim an enhancement of up to six orders of magnitude relative to an unmodulated trap, with feasibility under current magnetic levitation parameters. The internal algebra of the linearized second-moment dynamics is consistent, and the stability-map framework is a sensible way to search for enhancement regimes. However, the central quantitative claim rests on an unquantified truncation of noise-induced SN correlation terms and on a pure ground-state initial condition that the manuscript itself states has not yet been reached.

Significance. If the truncation is justified, the protocol is an interesting and potentially important use of parametric frequency modulation to amplify an extremely weak nonlinear gravitational self-interaction, and the stability-map analysis provides a clear route to selecting experimental parameters. The manuscript is transparent about two crucial limitations: footnote [49] acknowledges that the nonlinearity makes mixed states ambiguous and forces the pure-state assumption, and the Experimental Feasibility section acknowledges that the quantum ground state is expected only within the next five years. Neither limitation is reflected in the abstract's "feasible within current magnetic levitation technologies" claim. Since the six-orders-of-magnitude effect and the corresponding feasibility statement are the paper's advertised results, the work is currently significant only conditionally, pending a rigorous treatment of the truncated noise-induced terms and a corrected feasibility statement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C1)-(C3) and Eq. (12)] The quantitative claims in Figs. 3 and 4 rely on dropping the noise-induced SN correlation terms M*omega_SN^2*Fxp,t and 2M*omega_SN^2*Fpp,t from the second-moment equations, with only the assertion in Appendix C that these terms give a negligible contribution for the chosen parameters. No analytic or numerical bound is supplied, and the terms are not obviously negligible: using Table I, the thermal stationary value k_B*T/(M*omega^2) is about 1.4e-19 m^2, many orders of magnitude above the initial quantum variance, and a rough estimate near t=1 s gives contributions to Vxp-dot that are comparable to M*omega^2*Vxx in the early-growth regime shown in Figs. 3-4. The authors should either solve the full system including Fxp,t and Fpp,t, or provide a quantitative justification for their neglect over the entire simulated time interval; otherwise the enhancement curves solve a truncated system and the six-orders claim is not supported.
  2. [Experimental Feasibility, p. 4, and footnote [49]] The abstract claims the protocol is "feasible within current magnetic levitation technologies," but the Experimental Feasibility section states that the required pure mechanical ground state has not yet been reached and is expected only "in the next five years or so," and footnote [49] explains that the pure-state assumption is mandatory because the nonlinear SN equation has no unambiguous mixed-state treatment. At the parameters of Table I (T=10 K, omega=5*2*pi Hz), the thermal occupation is enormous, so the pure ground-state initial condition is a strong assumption rather than a demonstrated experimental capability. The feasibility claim should be revised to state that the protocol is compatible with projected ground-state capabilities, or the authors should show that the enhancement is robust to realistic initial thermal states.
  3. [Eq. (4) and the condition under Eq. (5)] The validity condition for the harmonic SN approximation is written as "Delta x_zp > Vxx," where Vxx is a variance and Delta x_zp is a length; the units are inconsistent unless Delta x_zp is meant to be a variance, and the text does not specify whether it is a standard deviation or a squared fluctuation. This matters for the unstable-branch strategy in Fig. 4, where Vxx is intentionally allowed to grow before the particle escapes the trap. The authors should state the precise bound in consistent units and verify that it is satisfied throughout the time interval shown in Fig. 4, not just that the particle remains within the 10^-3 m trap.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Appendix C, definition of x_t] In the paragraph after Eq. (C3), the state vector is written as x_t^T = (Vxx Vxp Vxp); the third component should be Vpp.
  2. [Discussion and Outlook] The phrase "conditional amplification of the the amplitude of motion" contains a duplicated article and should be corrected.
  3. [Figs. 3 and 4] The six-orders-of-magnitude claim should be defined precisely: it should state whether the comparison is between maxima of the envelopes, values at a fixed time, or asymptotic values, and whether the unmodulated reference curve is evaluated at the same total evolution time.
  4. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption states that non-periodic terms were neglected in the stability maps of panel 2.d but included for the inset; the main text should clarify whether the simulations behind Figs. 3 and 4 include the Fxp,t and Fpp,t terms or not, since this is directly relevant to the central claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SN enhancement is computed from the stated SN-modified Floquet dynamics with externally fixed ω_SN; α and β are protocol controls, and self-citations concern experimental parameters only.

full rationale

This paper's derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The input ω_SN is taken from the external result of Helou et al. [17], Eq. (5), and the effective-Heisenberg equations of motion from Yang et al. [12]; neither is a prior output of the present protocol. The central prediction—that a periodic modulation of ωt changes the Floquet stability of the second moments and amplifies ΔVxx = Vxx^0 − Vxx^SN—is obtained by solving Eq. (10) with the stated Pt and C, not by fitting a parameter to the target quantity. The free parameters α and β are experimental controls chosen near instability boundaries (β=2, α=1.911 and 1.910625); choosing control values to maximize a computed effect is experimental design, not circular fitting. No quantity appearing in Eqs. (10)-(13) is defined in terms of the predicted ΔVxx, and no 'uniqueness theorem' is imported from the authors' own work. The paper does contain self-citations (e.g., [10], [13], [23], [26], [40], [41]), but these support contextual or experimental-feasibility statements, not the derivation of the enhancement. The two genuine weaknesses are non-circular: Appendix C asserts without a numerical bound that Fxp,t and Fpp,t are negligible, and footnote [49] concedes that the pure ground-state input is not yet available, so the abstract's 'feasible within current technologies' overstates current readiness. These are correctness and support gaps, not cases where a prediction reduces by construction to its input.

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

The central calculation relies on the SN Hamiltonian from prior literature, a Gaussian-state assumption, and a pure ground-state initial condition. The only freely dialed numbers are the modulation parameters α and β, plus the material parameter Δx_zp that sets ω_SN. No new particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • phase parameter α = 1.911 (stable case), 1.910625 (unstable no-SN case)
    Protocol control chosen near an instability boundary; the enhancement magnitude depends critically on this distance.
  • frequency ratio β = 2
    Protocol control chosen to open a stability gap; assumed exactly achievable despite experimental frequency tolerances.
  • internal zero-point spread Δx_zp = 3.5 × 10^-12 m
    Sets the SN frequency via Eq. (5); not measured for the specific proposed platform, only chosen as compatible with levitated systems.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption SN equation and the harmonic approximation Eq. (4) with frequency ω_SN from Eq. (5)
    Taken from Refs. [12,17,22]; the whole analysis assumes this form of the SN potential and its validity condition.
  • domain assumption Effective Heisenberg picture for the nonlinear SN dynamics with damping and thermal noise
    The paper extends the SN equation to open-system dynamics, but for a nonlinear theory the ensemble average over noise is not uniquely defined; footnote [49] restricts to initially pure states.
  • domain assumption Gaussian state restriction
    The authors assume Gaussian states so that first and second moments close the equations; no justification is given for why the SN dynamics preserves Gaussianity.
  • ad hoc to paper Neglect of noise-induced correlation terms Fxp,t and Fpp,t in Eq. (12) and Appendix C
    Stated as 'negligible contribution' without quantitative bounds; these terms are dropped in the stability maps and in the main enhancement plots.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhancement of the effects due to the Schr\"odinger-Newton equation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/46APLZOT

@misc{pith2026250702845,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhancement of the effects due to the Schr\"odinger-Newton equation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/46APLZOT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.02845}
}
read the original abstract

The Schr\"odinger-Newton (SN) equation introduces a nonlinear self-gravitational term to the standard Schr\"odinger equation, offering a paradigmatic model for semiclassical gravity. However, the small deviations it predicts from standard quantum mechanics pose significant experimental challenges. We propose a novel method to amplify such deviations through periodic modulation of the trapping frequency in a levitated mechanical oscillator. We identify specific regimes where the SN-induced effects on the dynamics of second moments are significantly enhanced-by up to six orders of magnitude compared to unmodulated setups. We show that this protocol remains feasible within current magnetic levitation technologies and enables distinguishability between standard and SN dynamics using measurable quantities such as the position variance. Our results pave the way for a viable experimental test of the SN equation, offering a new route to probe the interface between quantum mechanics and gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.02845 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. We will show that this paradigm shift enhances significantly the chances for detection of the SN effect with today’s technology: mechanical squeezing protocols based on frequency parametric driving [28] or frequency jump operations [29, 30] have been demonstrated; in lev￾itated mechanical experiments, squeezing of thermal mo￾tional states has been shown [31–33] and the achieved squeezing factors on the level of 10 d… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The purple line shows the time evolution of the differ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Same as in Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Time evolution of the envelope curve of the maximum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Time evolution of the envelope curve of the maximum [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages

  1. [49]

    To avoid this, we consider only initially pure states

    Since the Schr¨ odinger-Newton equation is nonlinear, there is no clear way how to treat density matrices, be- cause in general they can correspond to different ensem- bles of pure states, which evolve differently under this SN dynamics. To avoid this, we consider only initially pure states. 8 Appendix A: Floquet-Lyapunov theory In what follows, we review...

    work page

  2. [1]

    Møller, in Colloques Internationaux CNRS (CNRS, Paris, 1962), vol

    C. Møller, in Colloques Internationaux CNRS (CNRS, Paris, 1962), vol. 91

    work page 1962

  3. [2]

    Rosenfeld, Nucl

    L. Rosenfeld, Nucl. Phys. 49, 353 (1963)

    work page 1963

  4. [3]

    Di´ osi, Phys

    L. Di´ osi, Phys. Lett. A105, 199 (1984)

    work page 1984

  5. [4]

    Di´ osi, Phys

    L. Di´ osi, Phys. Rev. A40, 1165 (1989)

    1989

  6. [5]

    Penrose, General Relativ

    R. Penrose, General Relativ. Gravit. 28, 581 (1996)

    work page 1996

  7. [6]

    Carlip, Classical and Quantum Gravity 25, 154010 (2008)

    S. Carlip, Classical and Quantum Gravity 25, 154010 (2008)

    work page 2008

  8. [7]

    Kafri, J

    D. Kafri, J. M. Taylor, and G. J. Milburn, New J. Phys. 16, 065020 (2014)

    2014

Show all 49 references
  1. [8]

    Tilloy and L

    A. Tilloy and L. Di´ osi, Phys. Rev. D93, 024026 (2016)

    2016

  2. [9]

    Oppenheim, Phys

    J. Oppenheim, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041040 (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    Bahrami, A

    M. Bahrami, A. Großardt, S. Donadi, and A. Bassi, New. J. Phys. 16, 115007 (2014)

    2014

  4. [11]

    J. R. Van Meter, Class. Quantum Grav. 28, 215013 (2011)

    2011

  5. [12]

    H. Yang, H. Miao, D.S.-Lee, B. Helou, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 170401 (2013)

    2013

  6. [13]

    Großardt, J

    A. Großardt, J. Bateman, H. Ulbricht, and A. Bassi, Phys. Rev. D 93, 096003 (2016)

    2016

  7. [14]

    C. C. Gan, C. M. Savage, and S. Z. Scully, Phys. Rev. D 93, 124049 (2016)

    2016

  8. [15]

    Colin, T

    S. Colin, T. Durt, and R. Willox, Phys. Rev. A 93, 062102 (2016)

    2016

  9. [16]

    Großardt, J

    A. Großardt, J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 880, 012019 (2017)

    2017

  10. [17]

    Helou, J

    B. Helou, J. Luo, H.-C. Yeh, C.-g. Shao, B. Slagmolen, D. E. McClelland, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D96, 044008 (2017)

    2017

  11. [18]

    Y. Liu, H. Miao, Y. Chen, and Y. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 107, 024004 (2023)

    2023

  12. [19]

    G. H. S. Aguiar and G. E. A. Matsas, Phys. Rev. A 109, 032223 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    J. A. Gruca, A. Kumar, R. Ganardi, P. Arumugam, K. Kropielnicka, and T. Paterek, Class. Quantum Grav. 41, 245014 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    T. Yan, L. Prokhorov, J. Smetana, V. Boyer, D. Mar- tynov, Y. Liu, Y. Ma, and H. Miao, Physical Review D 111, 082007 (2025)

    2025

  15. [22]

    Giulini and A

    D. Giulini and A. Großardt, New. J. Phys. 16, 075005 (2014)

    2014

  16. [23]

    Vinante, P

    A. Vinante, P. Falferi, G. Gasbarri, A. Setter, C. Tim- berlake, and H. Ulbricht, Physical Review Applied 13, 064027 (2020)

    2020

  17. [24]

    Hofer, R

    J. Hofer, R. Gross, G. Higgins, H. Huebl, O. F. Kieler, R. Kleiner, D. Koelle, P. Schmidt, J. A. Slater, M. Trupke, et al., Physical Review Letters 131, 043603 (2023)

    2023

  18. [25]

    Westphal, H

    T. Westphal, H. Hepach, J. Pfaff, and M. Aspelmeyer, Nature 591, 225 (2021)

    2021

  19. [26]

    T. M. Fuchs, D. G. Uitenbroek, J. Plugge, N. van Hal- teren, J.-P. van Soest, A. Vinante, H. Ulbricht, and T. H. Oosterkamp, Science Advances 10, eadk2949 (2024)

    2024

  20. [27]

    Q. Wu, D. Chisholm, R. Muffato, T. Georgescu, J. Homans, H. Ulbricht, M. Carlesso, and M. Paternos- tro, Quantum Sci. Technol. 9, 045038 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    Pontin, M

    A. Pontin, M. Bonaldi, A. Borrielli, F. S. Cataliotti, F. Marino, G. A. Prodi, E. Serra, and F. Marin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 023601 (2014), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.112.023601

    2014 doi

  22. [29]

    Janszky and Y

    J. Janszky and Y. Y. Yushin, Optics communications 59, 151 (1986)

    1986

  23. [30]

    Marti, U

    S. Marti, U. von L¨ upke, O. Joshi, Y. Yang, M. Bild, A. Omahen, Y. Chu, and M. Fadel, Nature Physics 20, 1448 (2024)

    2024

  24. [31]

    Rashid, T

    M. Rashid, T. Tufarelli, J. Bateman, J. Vovrosh, D. Hempston, M. Kim, and H. Ulbricht, Physical review letters 117, 273601 (2016)

    2016

  25. [32]

    Duchaˇ n, M

    M. Duchaˇ n, M. ˇSiler, P. J´ akl, O. Brzobohat` y, A. Rakhubovsky, R. Filip, and P. Zem´ anek, arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.04302 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Kamba, N

    M. Kamba, N. Hara, and K. Aikawa, arXiv preprint arXiv:2504.17944 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Muffato, T

    R. Muffato, T. Georgescu, J. Homans, T. Guerreiro, Q. Wu, D. Chisholm, M. Carlesso, M. Paternostro, and H. Ulbricht, Physical Review Research 7, 013171 (2025)

    2025

  28. [35]

    Muffato, T

    R. Muffato, T. Georgescu, M. Carlesso, M. Paternostro, and H. Ulbricht, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09596 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    F. R. Gantmacher, The Theory Of Matrices (Volume II) (AMS Chelsea Publishing, 1959)

    1959

  30. [37]

    Gonzalez-Ballestero, M

    C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, M. Aspelmeyer, L. Novotny, R. Quidant, and O. Romero-Isart, Science 374, eabg3027 (2021)

    2021

  31. [38]

    S. Bose, I. Fuentes, A. A. Geraci, S. M. Khan, S. Qvar- fort, M. Rademacher, M. Rashid, M. Toroˇ s, H. Ulbricht, and C. C. Wanjura, Reviews of Modern Physics 97, 015003 (2025)

    2025

  32. [39]

    Timberlake, Ph.D

    C. Timberlake, Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton (2020), URL https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/446655/

    2020

  33. [40]

    Vinante, A

    A. Vinante, A. Pontin, M. Rashid, M. Toroˇ s, P. Barker, and H. Ulbricht, Physical Review A 100, 012119 (2019)

    2019

  34. [41]

    Timberlake, E

    C. Timberlake, E. Simcox, and H. Ulbricht, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 033345 (2024), URL https://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.6.033345

    2024 doi

  35. [42]

    F. J. Headley, Magnetic dipole trapping potential between infinite superconducting plates (2025), 2504.18852, URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.18852

    2025 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Giulini and A

    D. Giulini and A. Großardt, Classical and Quantum Gravity 30, 155018 (2013). 7

    2013

  37. [44]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Reviews of Modern Physics 86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  38. [45]

    Chicone, Ordinary differential equations with applica- tions (Theorems 2.95,2.96; Proposition 2.67) (Springer, 2006)

    C. Chicone, Ordinary differential equations with applica- tions (Theorems 2.95,2.96; Proposition 2.67) (Springer, 2006)

    2006

  39. [46]

    Slane and S

    J. Slane and S. Tragesser, Nonlinear Dyn. Syst. Theory 11, 183 (2011)

    2011

  40. [47]

    (7), an extra average E[·] appears because the dynamics contains a noise term

    Note that now, differently from Eq. (7), an extra average E[·] appears because the dynamics contains a noise term

  41. [48]

    We notice that the choice α = π/2 coincides with the setting in Ref. [27]

Pith tools

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