Trap-to-trap free falls with an optically levitated nanoparticle

Eric Bonvin; Louisiane Devaud; Lukas Novotny; Martin Frimmer; Massimiliano Rossi; M. Luisa Mattana; Nicola Carlon Zambon

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 38 references

Trap-to-trap free falls with an optically levitated nanoparticle

T0 review · 2 major / 6 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 charge-neutral optically levitated nanoparticle can be released, fall under gravity alone, and be recaptured by a displaced optical tweezer with its position uncertainty growing nearly 200-fold.

desk verdict Solid experimental demonstration of recapture-and-recycle free fall for a levitated nanoparticle; the headline expansion value is likely a bit low, but the capability is real. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.12995 v1 pith:Z7TTNPSN submitted 2025-07-17 quant-ph physics.optics

M. Luisa Mattana , Nicola Carlon Zambon , Massimiliano Rossi , Eric Bonvin , Louisiane Devaud , Martin Frimmer , Lukas Novotny This is my paper

classification quant-phphysics.optics

keywords opticallylevitatednanoparticlefree-fallexperimentstateexpansionopticaltweezerchargeneutralityrecapturelevitodynamicsmatter-waveinterferometry

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

Using an optical tweezer that can be switched off, moved vertically, and switched back on, this paper shows that a charge-neutral levitated nanoparticle can be released, fall freely under gravity, and be recaptured without being lost, so the same particle can be recycled through thousands of experiments. During the free fall the particle is subject only to gravity: the measured vertical acceleration is $a_y = -10.9 \pm 0.4$ m/s$^2$, and the horizontal accelerations vanish within error. At the longest demonstrated fall time of 0.25 ms, the vertical position uncertainty grows to $\sigma_q = 110(15)$ nm, a state expansion factor $\xi_q = 189(18)$ relative to the initial cooled state, in agreement with a free-evolution model that includes only the initial spread, ballistic expansion, and background-gas reheating. The authors further show that recapture is optimized by displacing the trap by the gravitational drop $g\tau^2/2$, which minimizes the particle's energy in the recapturing trap and suppresses loss. If the projection holds, ground-state cooling and cryogenic ultra-high vacuum would extend free falls to millisecond durations, producing nanometer-scale coherence lengths that matter-wave interferometry with nanoparticles would need.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the switchable, vertically displaceable optical tweezer: an acousto-optic modulator toggles the trap power on and off and shifts the focus vertically on a 300 ns timescale, so the same beam releases the particle and recaptures it after a variable free-fall time $\tau$. The quantitative core is the covariance model for free evolution of a damped oscillator, in which the vertical position variance grows as $\xi_q^2 \approx 1 + \Omega_y^2\tau^2 + \frac{2}{3}\Gamma\Omega_y^2\tau^3$, with $\Omega_y$ the initial trap frequency and $\Gamma$ the background-gas reheating rate, and the recapture energy is minimized at trap displacement $d = g\tau^2/2$. State reconstruction uses backward bandpass filtering of single-shot quadrant-photodetector traces in the low-efficiency linear-filter limit; the maximum eigenvalue of the reconstructed covariance matrix defines the expansion factor $\xi_q$.

What would settle it

Re-analyze the $\tau = 0.25$ ms single-shot traces with bandpass-filter bandwidths of 1, 2, and 4 kHz and with the filter carrier shifted by $\pm 5$ kHz, and check whether the recovered position spread stays at 110(15) nm; a systematic drift with filter settings would mean the expansion is an estimation artifact rather than real free-evolution growth.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a charge-neutral optically levitated nanoparticle can be taken through a full release-free-fall-recapture cycle without destroying it, so that state expansion is obtained from free evolution instead of from applied potentials or photon recoil. The measured expansion after 0.25 ms is $\xi_q = 189(18)$, i.e., $\sigma_q = 110(15)$ nm along the vertical axis, following the predicted growth $\xi_q^2 \approx 1 + \Omega_y^2\tau^2 + \frac{2}{3}\Gamma\Omega_y^2\tau^3$; the acceleration data $a_y = -10.9 \pm 0.4$ m/s$^2$ confirm that only gravity acts during the fall. The authors also establish a quantitative recapture-loss criterion: the recaptured energy is minimized when the tweezer displacement equals $g\tau^2/2$, and their fit yields a trap depth $U_0 = 5.4(2) \times 10^5\,k_B T_0$. With ground-state cooling and a cryogenic ultra-high-vacuum environment, they calculate that the same scheme could reach $\tau \approx 1.9$ ms, an expansion of roughly 1680, and a coherence length $\ell \approx 4.7$ nm, more than two orders of magnitude beyond previous demonstrations.

Load-bearing premise

The headline expansion number assumes the backward-filtered detector traces faithfully reconstruct the particle's true position and momentum spread, even though the readout is only about 0.5% efficient and the trap frequency shifts by up to 5 kHz after recapture; if that reconstruction is biased, the 190-fold growth is not real.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Each free-fall realization recycles the same nanoparticle, so thousands of state-expansion cycles can be accumulated without preparing indistinguishable copies.
Free evolution under gravity is genuinely free of electric-field and photon-recoil perturbations; the dominant remaining decoherence channel in the current setup is background gas.
With ground-state cooling and cryogenic ultra-high vacuum, the protocol projects to $\tau \approx 1.9$ ms, $\xi_q \approx 1680$, and a coherence length of 4.7 nm.
The condition $d = g\tau^2/2$ for minimizing recapture energy gives a practical recipe for extending free-fall duration while keeping particle loss low.
Because the particle is charge-neutral, no electrode shielding or ion-trap infrastructure is needed in the free-fall region, simplifying the path to larger delocalizations.

Reading between the lines

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

The recycled-particle capability suggests using the same protocol as a repeated, single-mass gravity probe: the fitted relation between trap displacement and fall time gives a per-particle measurement of $g$, a use the paper does not develop.
The $\tau = 0.25$ ms deviation from the model is attributed to sub-linear transduction; measuring at lower detection power or at a different wavelength would isolate that readout nonlinearity from a genuine expansion anomaly.
Extending the sequence to a second release after recapture would turn the setup into a pulsed free-fall sequence with a matter-wave-like geometry; the paper does not propose this, but the 300 ns switching time makes it plausible.

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

The genuinely new thing here is not free fall of a levitated particle—that has been shown before—but the dual-tweezer recapture-and-recycle protocol with a charge-neutral particle, and it works. The authors release a cooled 120 nm silica sphere from an upper tweezer, let it fall up to 0.25 ms, catch it in a vertically displaced lower tweezer, and bring it back for repeated trials. The paper is honest about what limits the free-fall time and what would extend it.

What is done well: the state-expansion prediction in Eq. (2) is parameter-free, built from independently measured trap frequency, damping rate, and initial temperature, and it tracks the data over most of the range. The energy-at-recapture model (Eq. 1) with the U0 and calibration fit parameters is consistent with independent estimates within 10%. The acceleration measurement along y, −10.9±0.4 m/s², is close enough to g that the motion is dominated by gravity, and the x and z accelerations vanish as expected. The phase-space reconstruction and the explicit discussion of Duffing shifts at recapture show care.

Soft spots, in proportion: the headline number at τ=0.25 ms, ξq=189(18), is exactly the point where the authors invoke sub-linear QPD transduction to excuse the model-data deviation. The parameter-free prediction gives ξq≈224, about 16% higher. Since the nonlinearity compresses the measured variance while leaving the initial variance in the linear regime, the reported expansion ratio is likely a downward-biased estimate, not a validated measurement. The paper says as much in passing, but it does not correct or re-derive the headline value. That is a real weakness, but a localized one: the qualitative claim of a roughly two-hundred-fold expansion and the recapture/recycle capability do not depend on the exact number. The y-acceleration offset is attributed to volt-to-meter calibration without quantification; that is minor and plausibly right, but a sentence of support would help. No data or code are released, which makes independent verification harder, though the methods are detailed enough to reproduce in principle.

Overall: a serious experimental paper with a new capability and mostly solid analysis. The 0.25 ms expansion point should be re-examined or re-labelled as a lower bound, and that should be fixable in revision.

Recommendation: send it to a good referee. I would bring it to the reading group and would cite it once the expansion value is stated honestly.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports trap-to-trap free-fall experiments with a charge-neutral, optically levitated nanoparticle. A dual optical tweezer is toggled off to release the particle for up to 0.25 ms, then reactivated at a vertically displaced focus to recapture it, allowing repeated cycles. The measured vertical acceleration ay = -10.9 ± 0.4 m/s² is consistent with gravity, and recapture energetics are described by Eq. (1) with fitted trap depth and displacement calibration. The central result is a measured state expansion ξq = 189(18), i.e., σq = 110(15) nm, at τ = 0.25 ms, compared with the parameter-free prediction ξq ≈ 224 of Eq. (2) built from independently measured Ωy, γ, T0, and q0. The paper further projects that with ground-state cooling and cryogenic UHV operation, expansions of order 1700 and coherence lengths of several nanometers become reachable.

Significance. If the quantitative claims are validated, this is a genuine experimental advance for levitodynamics: the first demonstration of a recyclable free-fall protocol for a charge-neutral nanoparticle, with the expansion predicted by a parameter-free formula (Eq. 2) that requires no constants fitted to the expansion dataset, and an independent gravitational-acceleration check of the free evolution. The loss-probability model of Fig. 4 provides a testable roadmap toward millisecond free-fall times and nanometer-scale coherence lengths. These strengths should be credited: the central prediction uses independently measured parameters, and the reported error bars on the acceleration and expansion are explicit. The main weakness is that the headline expansion value at the longest free-fall time is affected by a readout nonlinearity acknowledged in the text but not corrected, so the precise quantitative claim is not yet validated.

major comments (2)

[Results; Fig. 3(a), Eq. (2)] The headline quantitative claim, ξq = 189(18) at τ = 0.25 ms, coincides with the largest deviation from the parameter-free prediction of Eq. (2) (which gives ξq ≈ 224), and the text attributes this deviation to sub-linear transduction in the interferometric readout 'significant for oscillation amplitudes comparable to a quarter of the laser wavelength.' Because ξq is defined as the ratio of variances obtained through a linear volt-to-meter calibration (Supplement Sec. IV, Eq. S20), and because the recaptured position distribution (σq = 110 nm) extends to instantaneous amplitudes of several hundred nanometers, the numerator of this ratio is suppressed by the transduction nonlinearity while the denominator (q0 ≈ 0.6 nm) remains linear. The reported value is therefore a biased estimate of the true expansion, with a bias that is likely comparable to or larger than the 16% deviation between data and the parameter-free prediction, and the paper neither corrects nor bounds it. The authors should either recalibrate the readout in the nonlinear regime, provide a rigorous systematic-uncertainty band for ξq at τ = 0.25 ms, or rephrase the headline claim so that the measured lower bound and the model prediction are clearly distinguished.
[Supplement Sec. V; Fig. 3] The covariance estimator used to produce ξq and ξp is justified only by the low-efficiency Kalman limit (diagonal conditional covariance Σc, ≈0.5% efficiency) and by the statement that the redistribution into sidebands is a few percent; no evidence (synthetic-trajectory tests, filter consistency checks, or cross-validation against an independent estimator) is given that the inferred eigenvalues of the covariance matrix are unbiased at the operating point. This matters precisely because the headline point (τ = 0.25 ms) is also the point with up to 5 kHz Duffing-induced frequency shifts after recapture, a finite-sampling rotation δθ, and the readout nonlinearity of the previous comment. The two effects are entangled in the reported ξq = 189(18), and the text's attribution of the deviation to sub-linear transduction alone is an assumption, not a diagnosis. A quantitative validation of the estimator, or at least an estimate of its bias at the reported parameters, is needed before the expansion and compression factors can be treated as measured state-space quantities.

minor comments (6)

[Results] There is a duplicated article in 'we obtain U0 = 5.4(2)·10^5 and the and the calibration factor cf = 95(2) nm/MHz'; the duplicate 'the' should be deleted.
[References] Reference [3] contains a corrupted author name ('F. Kia/suppress lka' should be F. Kiałka), and references [16], [19], and [20] list placeholder page information (', 1 (2024)') rather than complete publication data; the bibliography should be updated.
[Fig. 3 caption] The rendered caption of Fig. 3 contains stray subfigure labels ('(b) (b) Y Y') that should be removed.
[Concluding discussion] In the concluding section, 'perquisite for matter–wave experiments' should read 'prerequisite'; a light language edit is otherwise recommended (e.g., 'Fig. 2(a-c) shows' with a plural subject).
[Results; Fig. 3(a)] The number of experimental realizations for the additional τ = 0.25 ms dataset (recorded with a different particle) is not stated, although the other datasets report 100 realizations; please specify it.
[Results; Fig. 2(b)] The residual ay - g ≈ 1.1 m/s² is attributed to volt-to-meter calibration errors; the same residual could in principle contain an electric-field contribution, and a brief estimate of the implied upper bound on the particle's residual charge would strengthen the charge-neutral claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (2) is a parameter-free expansion prediction using independently measured inputs; the fitted energy parameters do not enter it.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim, ξq=189(18) at τ=0.25 ms, is compared against Eq. (2), which is derived from the Langevin equations in Supplement I and evaluated with independently measured Ω_y, γ, T_0, and q_0; no parameter is fitted to the ξq data in Fig. 3(a). The fitted quantities U0 and c_f from Eq. (1) enter the recapture-energy model and the loss-probability calculation, but not the variance-expansion prediction. The voltage-to-displacement calibration is described explicitly in Supplement IV by equipartition at high pressure, so the citation to Ref. [31] is a methodological reference rather than a load-bearing self-citation. The acknowledged sub-linear QPD transduction at large amplitudes is a measurement-bias concern for the headline value, not a circular reduction: the paper does not use the deviation to redefine Eq. (2) or to fit the model. No step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The expansion result in Eq. (2) is not fitted: it uses measured Ω_y=2π x 141.2 kHz, q0=0.58(6) nm, γ extrapolated from pressure, and T0=34 mK. Fitted parameters U0, cf, and Duffing coefficients enter only into energy, loss, and frequency-shift modeling. No new physical entities are introduced. The main burden is the transduction-linearity assumption at the largest free-fall time.

free parameters (3)

Optical trap depth U0 (in units of kBT0) = 5.4(2) x 10^5
Fitted to recapture energy data in Fig. 2(d) using Eq. (1); used for energy and loss modeling, not for the state-expansion prediction Eq. (2).
AOM detuning to displacement calibration factor cf = 95(2) nm/MHz
Fitted simultaneously with U0 in Eq. (1); within 10% of independent estimates from lens, power, and particle parameters.
Duffing coefficients ξx, ξy, ξz = -1.72(3), -2.78(2), -0.32(1) um^-2
Fitted to frequency-shift data in Supplemental Fig. S4; used to explain post-recapture frequency shifts and particle loss, not to fit the central expansion factor.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption The optical tweezer is a harmonic potential for small COM displacements, with stiffness set by laser power and switchable off during free fall.
Section 'Experiment'; basis for normal-mode frequencies and initial Gaussian state.
domain assumption Free evolution is governed by the Langevin equations with uniform gravity, viscous damping γ, and a Markovian white-noise bath at 300 K, with γτ << 1.
Supplemental Section I derives Eq. (2) and purity from Eqs. S1-S9; assumes no other forces act during free fall.
domain assumption Gas damping rate scales linearly with pressure from 9.6 mbar to 3e-6 mbar.
Used to extrapolate γ=2π x 2.8(3) mHz at base pressure, which sets Γ in Eq. (2) and in Figure 4.
domain assumption Parametric feedback cooling prepares a Gaussian thermal state with diagonal covariance (no significant position-momentum correlations).
Assumed in Supplemental Eqs. S1/S7 and in the Kalman-filter limit; stated to be verified a posteriori only for the datasets.
domain assumption The QPD readout transduction is linear with a voltage-to-displacement calibration factor identical before and after free fall.
Required to convert raw signals to q and p; the paper itself notes sub-linear transduction at large amplitudes as the reason for deviation at τ=0.25 ms.
ad hoc to paper The observed deviation at τ=0.25 ms is caused by sub-linear transduction in the readout, not by a bias in the state estimator or by extra physics.
Invoked in Results after Fig. 3(a); no quantitative transduction calibration is provided to support this attribution.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Trap-to-trap free falls with an optically levitated nanoparticle." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z7TTNPSN

@misc{pith2026250712995,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Trap-to-trap free falls with an optically levitated nanoparticle},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z7TTNPSN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.12995}
}

read the original abstract

We perform free-fall experiments with a charge-neutral, optically levitated nanoparticle. This is achieved using an optical tweezer that can be rapidly toggled on and off and vertically displaced, enabling the particle to be released and recaptured after each free fall. The particle is insensitive to electric fields due to its charge neutrality and, during free evolution, is not subject to photon recoil heating. We achieve free-fall durations of up to 0.25 ms and observe a nearly two hundred-fold increase in the particle's position uncertainty at recapture. The current limit on the free-fall time arises from the performance of the initial cooling step. By implementing linear feedback techniques and reducing the background pressure, we expect to perform millisecond-scale free-fall experiments in ultra-high vacuum, opening new opportunities for generating large delocalizations of levitated objects.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.12995 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a–c) Average particle center-of-mass position ver [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** FIG. 4. (a) Calculated particle loss probability ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages

[1]

ated motion, we estimate the acceleration aj the parti- cle is subject to along each axis j ∈ { x, y, z}

In all panels, each point represents 100 experimental realizations; error bars denote 2σ conﬁdence intervals. ated motion, we estimate the acceleration aj the parti- cle is subject to along each axis j ∈ { x, y, z}. We ob- tain ax = 0 .0 ± 0.1 m /s2, ay = −10.9 ± 0.4 m /s2 and az = 0.03 ± 0.03 m/s2. Both ax and az vanish within the error, as expected for ...

work page
[2]

The second term is associated with the average momentum gained during free-fall ( ⟨p⟩ = −gmτ ), and becomes comparable to the trap depth only at long times τ ≈ 54 ms

represents the particle’s initial kinetic energy. The second term is associated with the average momentum gained during free-fall ( ⟨p⟩ = −gmτ ), and becomes comparable to the trap depth only at long times τ ≈ 54 ms. The third term accounts both for potential energy contributions associ- ated with the particle-trap alignment (via ∆ y) and for the energy g...

work page
[3]

account for the initial rms motion q0, for the growth of σq at a rate proportional to p0 (initial 4 (a) (b) (b) Y Y FIG. 3. (a) Measured state expansion ξq along y as a function of free fall time τ. Error bars correspond to 2σ standard conﬁ- dence intervals. (b) Sampling of the phase-space distributio n prior to the free fall (blue), at recapture (black) ...

work page
[4]

Kovachy, P

T. Kovachy, P. Asenbaum, C. Overstreet, C. A. Donnelly, S. M. Dickerson, A. Sugarbaker, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Nature 528, 530 (2015)

2015
[5]

D. C. Aveline, J. R. Williams, E. R. Elliott, C. Dutenhof- fer, J. R. Kellogg, J. M. Kohel, N. E. Lay, K. Oudrhiri, R. F. Shotwell, N. Yu, and R. J. Thompson, Nature 582, 193 (2020)

work page 2020
[6]

Y. Y. Fein, P. Geyer, P. Zwick, F. Kia/suppress lka, S. Pedalino, M. Mayor, S. Gerlich, and M. Arndt, Nature Physics 15, 1242 (2019)

work page 2019
[7]

D. W. Keith, C. R. Ekstrom, Q. A. Turchette, and D. E. Pritchard, Physical Review Letters 66, 2693 (1991)

work page 1991
[8]

Nairz, M

O. Nairz, M. Arndt, and A. Zeilinger, American Journal of Physics 71, 319 (2003)

work page 2003

Show all 38 references

[9]

Romero-Isart, A

O. Romero-Isart, A. C. Pﬂanzer, F. Blaser, R. Kaltenbaek, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer, and J. I. Cirac, Physical Review Letters 107, 020405 (2011), arXiv:1103.4081

2011 arXiv
[10]

Weiss, M

T. Weiss, M. Roda-Llordes, E. Torrontegui, M. As- pelmeyer, and O. Romero-Isart, Physical Review Letters 127, 023601 (2021), arXiv:2012.12260

2021 arXiv
[11]

Roda-Llordes, A

M. Roda-Llordes, A. Riera-Campeny, D. Candoli, P. T. Grochowski, and O. Romero-Isart, Physical Review Let- ters 132, 023601 (2024)

2024
[12]

Neumeier, M

L. Neumeier, M. A. Ciampini, O. Romero-Isart, M. As- pelmeyer, and N. Kiesel, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 121, e2306953121 (2024)

2024
[13]

Gonzalez-Ballestero, M

C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, M. Aspelmeyer, L. Novotny, R. Quidant, and O. Romero-Isart, Science 374 (2021), 10.1126/science.abg3027, arXiv:2111.05215

2021 arXiv
[14]

Deli´ c, M

U. Deli´ c, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V. Vuleti´ c, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, Science 367, 892 (2020)

2020
[15]

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)

2021
[16]

Tebbenjohanns, M

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

2021
[17]

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, arXiv preprint arXiv:2412.14117 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[18]

Rashid, T

M. Rashid, T. Tufarelli, J. Bateman, J. Vovrosh, D. Hempston, M. S. Kim, and H. Ulbricht, Physical Review Letters 117, 273601 (2016), arXiv:1607.05509

2016 arXiv
[19]

Duchaˇ n, M

M. Duchaˇ n, M. ˇSiler, P. J´ akl, O. Brzobohat´ y, A. Rakhubovsky, R. Filip, and P. Zem´ anek, , 1 (2024), arXiv:2403.04302

2024 arXiv
[20]

Bonvin, L

E. Bonvin, L. Devaud, M. Rossi, A. Militaru, L. Da- nia, D. S. Bykov, O. Romero-Isart, T. E. Northup, L. Novotny, and M. Frimmer, Physical Review Letters 132, 253602 (2024), arXiv:2312.13111

2024 arXiv
[21]

G. F. M. Tomassi, D. Veldhuizen, B. Melo, D. Candoli, A. Riera-Campeny, O. Romero-Isart, N. Meyer, and R. Quidant, , 1 (2025), arXiv:2503.20707

2025 arXiv
[22]

Rossi, A

M. Rossi, A. Militaru, N. C. Zambon, A. Riera-Campeny, O. Romero-Isart, M. Frimmer, and L. Novotny, (2024), arXiv:2408.01264

2024 arXiv
[23]

Kamba, N

M. Kamba, N. Hara, and K. Aikawa, , 1 (2025) , arXiv:2504.17944

2025 arXiv
[24]

Hebestreit, M

E. Hebestreit, M. Frimmer, R. Reimann, and L. Novotny,Physical Review Letters 121, 063602 (2018), arXiv:1801.01169

2018 arXiv
[25]

Kamba and K

M. Kamba and K. Aikawa, Physical Review Letters 131, 183602 (2023)

2023
[26]

Romero-Isart, A

O. Romero-Isart, A. C. Pﬂanzer, M. L. Juan, R. Quidant, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer, and J. I. Cirac, Physical Re- view A 83, 013803 (2011), arXiv:1010.3109

2011 arXiv
[27]

Millen, T

J. Millen, T. S. Monteiro, R. Pettit, and A. N. Vami- vakas, Reports on Progress in Physics 83, 026401 (2020)

2020
[28]

Gieseler, B

J. Gieseler, B. Deutsch, R. Quidant, and L. Novotny, Physical Review Letters 109, 103603 (2012) , arXiv:1202.6435

2012 arXiv
[29]

V. Jain, J. Gieseler, C. Moritz, C. Dellago, R. Quidant, and L. Novotny, Physical Review Letters 116, 243601 (2016)

2016
[30]

Frimmer, K

M. Frimmer, K. Luszcz, S. Ferreiro, V. Jain, E. Hebe- 6 streit, and L. Novotny, Physical Review A 95, 061801 (2017)

2017
[31]

See supplemental material for the derivation of the model and of the recapture probability, for details on the data analysis and for an extended dataset

“See supplemental material for the derivation of the model and of the recapture probability, for details on the data analysis and for an extended dataset.”
[32]

H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Measurement and Control (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2009)

2009
[33]

C. Meng, G. A. Brawley, J. S. Bennett, M. R. Vanner, and W. P. Bowen, Physical Review Letters 125, 043604 (2020)

2020
[34]

Hebestreit, M

E. Hebestreit, M. Frimmer, R. Reimann, C. Dellago, F. Ricci, and L. Novotny, Review of Scientiﬁc Instru- ments 89 (2018), 10.1063/1.5017119

2018 doi
[35]

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, Nat. Phys. 19, 1009 (2023)

2023
[36]

Kamba, R

M. Kamba, R. Shimizu, and K. Aikawa, Optics Express 30, 26716 (2022)

2022
[37]

Tebbenjohanns, M

F. Tebbenjohanns, M. Frimmer, and L. Novotny, Phys- ical Review A 100, 043821 (2019), arXiv:1907.12838. Supplemental Material: Trap-to-trap free falls with an optically levitated nanoparticle M. Luisa Mattana, 1, ∗ Nicola Carlon Zambon, 1, 2, † Massimiliano Rossi, 1, 2, ‡ Eric...

2019 arXiv
[38]

For each ﬁltered trajectory, we then extract the particle’s position and momentum at r ecapture and normalize them to q0 and p0, respectively

and momentum variance ( p2 0). For each ﬁltered trajectory, we then extract the particle’s position and momentum at r ecapture and normalize them to q0 and p0, respectively. From the ensemble of realizations, we compute the second moments of the normalized position (˜q = q/q0)...

2018

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

ated motion, we estimate the acceleration aj the parti- cle is subject to along each axis j ∈ { x, y, z}

In all panels, each point represents 100 experimental realizations; error bars denote 2σ conﬁdence intervals. ated motion, we estimate the acceleration aj the parti- cle is subject to along each axis j ∈ { x, y, z}. We ob- tain ax = 0 .0 ± 0.1 m /s2, ay = −10.9 ± 0.4 m /s2 and az = 0.03 ± 0.03 m/s2. Both ax and az vanish within the error, as expected for ...

work page

[2] [2]

The second term is associated with the average momentum gained during free-fall ( ⟨p⟩ = −gmτ ), and becomes comparable to the trap depth only at long times τ ≈ 54 ms

represents the particle’s initial kinetic energy. The second term is associated with the average momentum gained during free-fall ( ⟨p⟩ = −gmτ ), and becomes comparable to the trap depth only at long times τ ≈ 54 ms. The third term accounts both for potential energy contributions associ- ated with the particle-trap alignment (via ∆ y) and for the energy g...

work page

[3] [3]

account for the initial rms motion q0, for the growth of σq at a rate proportional to p0 (initial 4 (a) (b) (b) Y Y FIG. 3. (a) Measured state expansion ξq along y as a function of free fall time τ. Error bars correspond to 2σ standard conﬁ- dence intervals. (b) Sampling of the phase-space distributio n prior to the free fall (blue), at recapture (black) ...

work page

[4] [4]

Kovachy, P

T. Kovachy, P. Asenbaum, C. Overstreet, C. A. Donnelly, S. M. Dickerson, A. Sugarbaker, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Nature 528, 530 (2015)

2015

[5] [5]

D. C. Aveline, J. R. Williams, E. R. Elliott, C. Dutenhof- fer, J. R. Kellogg, J. M. Kohel, N. E. Lay, K. Oudrhiri, R. F. Shotwell, N. Yu, and R. J. Thompson, Nature 582, 193 (2020)

work page 2020

[6] [6]

Y. Y. Fein, P. Geyer, P. Zwick, F. Kia/suppress lka, S. Pedalino, M. Mayor, S. Gerlich, and M. Arndt, Nature Physics 15, 1242 (2019)

work page 2019

[7] [7]

D. W. Keith, C. R. Ekstrom, Q. A. Turchette, and D. E. Pritchard, Physical Review Letters 66, 2693 (1991)

work page 1991

[8] [8]

Nairz, M

O. Nairz, M. Arndt, and A. Zeilinger, American Journal of Physics 71, 319 (2003)

work page 2003