Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 63 references

Optical Interferometric Readout of a Magnetically Levitated Superconducting Microsphere

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The authors demonstrate direct optical interferometric readout of a magnetically levitated superconducting microsphere with sub-nanometer-per-root-hertz resolution, and use the signal to feedback-cool its axial motion to about 8 nm.

desk verdict First direct optical readout of a levitated superconducting microsphere: solid experiment, only real blemish is the abstract's 'better than 1 nm/√Hz' overstatement. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.11731 v1 pith:ZCHWWNX5 submitted 2025-08-15 quant-ph

J. J. Hansen , S. Minniberger , D. Ilk , P. Asenbaum , G. Higgins , R. G. Povey , P. Schmidt , J. Hofer
show 3 more authors
R. Claessen M. Aspelmeyer M. Trupke
This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords levitatedoptomechanicssuperconductingmicrosphereopticalinterferometryfeedbackcoolingmagneticlevitationdisplacementsensingcryogenicbalancedhomodynedetection
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 direct optical interferometric readout of a magnetically levitated superconducting microsphere. At 3 K, a 6 µg lead-tin sphere in an anti-Helmholtz trap serves as one mirror of a balanced homodyne interferometer; the calibrated displacement noise floor is $955(148)\,\mathrm{pm}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ near the mechanical frequency, better than $1\,\mathrm{nm}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$, and the same signal feedback-cools the axial motion to about $8\,\mathrm{nm}$. The authors argue this removes a key bottleneck for levitated superconducting masses, since optical readout was considered incompatible with superconductors because single photons can break Cooper pairs; at the low photon flux used ($10^7$ photons/s) the particle stays superconducting for hundreds of seconds. The measured floor is about two orders above the $11\,\mathrm{pm}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ photon shot-noise limit, with the excess attributed to surface roughness, rotations, and drifts of the commercial sphere. If the levitator is placed in an optical cavity, the paper's calculation says ground-state cooling of a $6\,\mu\mathrm{g}$ mass would need only about $0.9\,\mathrm{pW}$ of input light.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is a Mach-Zehnder-like balanced homodyne interferometer that uses the levitated microsphere as the signal-arm reflector. A closed-loop phase lock drives an acousto-optic modulator to track the frequency difference between the arms, compensating Doppler shifts and phase fluctuations from the rough particle; this linearises the detector difference signal for displacements of several $\mu\mathrm{m}$ and keeps it proportional to axial position. Calibration is done two ways—reflection from a piezo-mounted mirror at known amplitude, and an oscillating magnetic probe tone whose harmonic-oscillator response is fitted—and the calibrated signal is bandpass-filtered, phase-de

What would settle it

Repeat the measurement with a polished sphere of the same mass: if the noise floor does not move substantially toward the $11\,\mathrm{pm}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ shot-noise limit, the surface-roughness explanation is not the whole story. Independently, calibrate the displacement signal with a method that does not assume a uniform probe field—e.g., a calibrated radiation-pressure force or an auxiliary SQUID readout—and check whether it agrees with the probe-tone calibration.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central experimental claim is that the axial motion of a $6\,\mu\mathrm{g}$ superconducting PbSn microsphere levitated in an anti-Helmholtz trap at 3 K can be measured optically with a calibrated one-sided displacement noise floor of $\sqrt{2 S_{zz}} = 955(148)\,\mathrm{pm}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ near the mechanical frequency, and that this signal is clean enough to feedback-cool the mode to $\sqrt{\langle z^2 \rangle_{\min}} \approx 8\,\mathrm{nm}$. The authors note this is about two orders of magnitude above the $11\,\mathrm{pm}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ shot-noise limit set by $10^7$ collected photons/s, and they trace the excess to the particle's surface roughness ($\sigma_r = 50\,\mathrm{nm}

Load-bearing premise

The absolute displacement scale rests on the calibration assumption that the external probe field is uniform across the $100\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ sphere and the trap gradient is linear, and that the interferometer lock's suppression factor is constant across the measurement band; if any of these fails, the quoted noise floor and cooled amplitude shift systematically.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Direct optical readout of a levitated superconductor works at low photon flux ($10^7$ photons/s) without immediate quenching, so the readout bottleneck that previously favoured SQUIDs is removed.
  • At the achieved resolution, interferometric feedback cooling brings the axial mode to about $8\,\mathrm{nm}$, and the ring-up data give a thermal decoherence rate $\Gamma_{\mathrm{th}} = 6.4 \times 10^{12}\,\mathrm{Hz}$ at a trap frequency of 160 Hz.
  • If the surface-roughness, rotation, and drift noise are suppressed, the same interferometer could approach its $11\,\mathrm{pm}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ shot-noise limit, a roughly 100-fold sensitivity gain.
  • With an optical cavity of finesse $10^5$ at $\lambda = 1.55\,\mu\mathrm{m}$ and detection efficiency $\eta = 0.75$, the paper's calculation puts ground-state cooling of a $6\,\mu\mathrm{g}$ sphere at only $7 \times 10^6$ photons/s, or $0.9\,\mathrm{pW}$.
  • Combined with the high mechanical quality factors already reported for levitated superconducting microspheres (up to $2.6 \times 10^7$), this points toward quantum experiments with microgram-scale masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the dominant excess noise comes from the sphere rotating under the beam, locking the probe to a fixed scattering region—e.g., by tracking the particle's rotation or using structured illumination—could cut the floor without needing smoother spheres; the paper does not test this.
  • The abrupt drop in levitation lifetime above about $2 \times 10^7$ photons/s hints at quasiparticle or two-photon processes; probing at wavelengths below the superconducting gap energy could extend lifetimes or permit higher readout power.
  • The same phase-tracked interferometer should work on any reflective levitated object, so the readout could transfer to optically levitated or hybrid particles where photon-pair-breaking is not a constraint.
  • A third calibration method that avoids the uniform-field assumption would directly test the most fragile step in the absolute displacement scale; the two existing methods agreeing within uncertainty is encouraging but not a proof of that assumption.
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 interferometric readout of the axial motion of a 6 µg magnetically levitated superconducting PbSn microsphere in an anti-Helmholtz trap at 3 K. A Mach-Zehnder-like interferometer with balanced homodyne detection and AOM phase tracking is used; the signal is calibrated by two independent methods (piezo-driven mirror and probe-tone force response) and is used for feedback cooling. The quoted calibrated one-sided displacement noise floor is sqrt(2) S_zz = 955(148) pm/sqrt(Hz), about two orders of magnitude above the 11 pm/sqrt(Hz) shot-noise limit, attributed to surface roughness and rotation. Feedback cooling reaches sqrt(<z^2>) ≈ 8 nm. The paper also reports levitation lifetimes under optical illumination, a thermal decoherence rate, and a projected cavity-enhanced route toward ground-state cooling.

Significance. The demonstration of direct optical interferometric readout of a levitated superconductor is significant: it addresses a longstanding concern that optical probing would quench superconductivity, and it provides a calibrated displacement measurement at the nm/sqrt(Hz) level with feedback cooling to ~8 nm amplitude. Strengths include the use of two independent calibration methods that agree within uncertainty, the quantification of the noise floor, the availability of the data on Zenodo, and the explicit statement of the quantum cooperativity and ground-state cooling requirements. If the headline claim is appropriately qualified, the work is a solid experimental step toward quantum experiments with microgram levitated masses.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and main text, noise-floor statement] The abstract states 'achieving a resolution better than 1 nm/√Hz', but the main text reports a calibrated one-sided noise floor of √2 S_zz = 955(148) pm/√Hz near the mechanical frequency. At 1σ the upper bound is 1103 pm/√Hz, which exceeds 1 nm/√Hz. The data therefore do not establish 'better than 1 nm/√Hz' at the stated uncertainty; the concluding 'around 1 nm/√Hz' is supported. Please temper the abstract to '≈1 nm/√Hz' or quote the value with its uncertainty.
  2. [Supplement, Eq. (S2)] The probe-tone calibration assumes Δz = B_ext/(dB_trap/dz), i.e., a uniform external calibration field over the 100 µm sphere and a linear trap gradient. Any violation of these assumptions enters directly into the absolute displacement scale, and hence into the 955 pm/√Hz floor and the 8 nm cooled amplitude. The agreement between the two calibration methods is reassuring, but the uniform-field and linear-gradient approximations should be justified quantitatively from the coil geometry and trap profile, and the residual systematic uncertainty should be stated.
  3. [Main text, noise-floor statement] The reported value √2 S_zz = 955(148) pm/√Hz lacks a definition of the estimator: no bandwidth or smoothing is specified, no number of independent spectra, and no explicit propagation of the calibration uncertainties (suppression ratio 7.95±1.17 vs 7.5±0.75) into the 148 pm/√Hz error bar. This information is needed to assess the statistical significance of the comparison with the 1 nm/√Hz threshold and should be added to the supplement.
minor comments (4)
  1. [References] Reference [31] is the self-reference 'Supplementary material, .' and is incomplete. The supplement also contains an unresolved cross-reference 'described in Sec. .'.
  2. [Main text, ground-state condition] The expression 'n <1 ⇒ 4 g² ncav/(κ Γ_th) > 1/(9η-1)>0' is confusing: the condition should be η>1/9 so that the denominator is positive; the trailing '>0' is either redundant or a typo.
  3. [Abstract] The phrase 'The resolution exceeds the shot-noise limit' is ambiguous because a larger displacement noise floor is worse, not better. Consider wording such as 'the noise floor is a factor of ~87 above the shot-noise limit'.
  4. [Supplement, Levitation time] The statement that readout and cooling protocols are 'carried out over much shorter time periods' should be reconciled with the main text's 100 s run-time limit and the green region in Fig. S11.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Experimental measurement with independent calibrations; no circular derivation found.

full rationale

The central claim is a calibrated experimental measurement, not a derived prediction. The displacement calibration is performed by two independent methods: a piezo-driven mirror with known amplitude and a probe-tone force model. The probe-tone method uses Eq. S2, Δz = B_ext/(dB_trap/dz), with the gradient inferred from the independently measured trap frequency and known density, and the oscillator response of Eq. S4. Neither method fits the observed noise floor; the two suppression ratios agree within uncertainty (7.95 ± 1.17 vs 7.5 ± 0.75). The reported 955(148) pm/√Hz floor is directly measured after calibration, and the shot-noise limit of 11 pm/√Hz is independently calculated from λ and n_det. The cooled amplitude and quantum cooperativity are then computed from standard optomechanical feedback formulas using measured noise and ring-up rates. Self-citations to prior levitation work provide background formulas and quality factors, but they are not the load-bearing derivation of the optical readout. No step reduces to its own input. Two non-circular concerns exist: (i) the abstract's 'better than 1 nm/√Hz' is not supported at the 1σ level given 955 ± 148 pm/√Hz, and (ii) the supplement contains an empty cross-reference ('described in Sec. .'). Neither constitutes circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement is largely self-contained. The main assumptions are the harmonic oscillator model, the quadrupole field approximation for calibration, and the constant-suppression-factor assumption for the interferometric lock. No free parameters are fitted to support the central claim; the thermal decoherence rate is a measured output. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The levitated particle's motion is described by a damped harmonic oscillator.
    Used throughout the feedback cooling model and ring-up analysis in the main text and supplementary.
  • standard math The fluctuation-dissipation theorem relates force noise to damping and temperature.
    Invoked in the sensitivity requirements section to relate thermal force noise to temperature and damping.
  • domain assumption The magnetic trap is a quadrupole with gradients linearly dependent on coil current, and the external calibration field is uniform over the particle.
    Used in the probe-tone calibration, Eq. S2, where Δz = B_ext/(dB_trap/dz). Assumes the calibration field is uniform over the 100 µm sphere.
  • domain assumption The interferometer phase-tracking lock suppresses the signal by a constant factor over the measurement bandwidth.
    The piezo-mirror calibration measures a single suppression factor at 217 Hz and assumes it applies to the noise floor near the mechanical frequency.
  • domain assumption The particle is a uniform sphere with known density ρ = 1.1×10^4 kg/m^3.
    Used in the trap frequency formula f_i = sqrt(3/(8π²μ₀ρ)) b_i to relate measured frequencies to field gradients.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical Interferometric Readout of a Magnetically Levitated Superconducting Microsphere." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZCHWWNX5

@misc{pith2026250811731,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical Interferometric Readout of a Magnetically Levitated Superconducting Microsphere},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZCHWWNX5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.11731}
}
abstract

We probe the motion of a 6 $\mu g$ magnetically levitated superconducting microsphere using optical interferometry at 3 K, achieving a resolution better than 1 $nm/ \sqrt{Hz}$, and use the measured signal to feedback-cool its motion. The resolution exceeds the shot-noise limit of 11 $pm/ \sqrt{Hz}$ primarily due to technical noise arising from the roughness of the particle. Combined with established techniques of cavity optomechanics, the high degree of isolation from environmental noise afforded by this platform provides a path to quantum physics experiments with cryogenic isolated masses at the microgram scale.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    O’Connell, M

    A. O’Connell, M. Hofheinz, M. Ansmann, R. Bialczak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, J. Martinis, and A. Cleland, Quantum ground state and single-phonon control of a mechanical resonator, Nature 464, 697 (2010)

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    For a 6 µg particle, integrating d E = c mdT between Tstart = 3.5 K and Tend = 6.9 K gives ∆E = 3.6 × 10−8 J

    [58], the ex- pected quenching temperature occurs around T = 6.9 K. For a 6 µg particle, integrating d E = c mdT between Tstart = 3.5 K and Tend = 6.9 K gives ∆E = 3.6 × 10−8 J. The heat conductivity of lead, even while cold and super- conducting, is great enough such that, over a timescale of seconds, the temperature of the sphere is effectively uniform....

    work page

  3. [3]

    Palomaki, J

    T. Palomaki, J. Harlow, J. Teufel, R. Simmonds, and K. Lehnert, Coherent state transfer between itinerant mi- crowave fields and a mechanical oscillator, Nature 495, 210 (2013)

    work page 2013

  4. [4]

    Wollman, C

    E. Wollman, C. U. Lei, A. Weinstein, J. Suh, A. Kron- wald, F. Marquardt, A. Clerk, and K. Schwab, Quantum mechanics. quantum squeezing of motion in a mechanical resonator, Science 349 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    Riedinger, A

    R. Riedinger, A. Wallucks, I. Marinkovic, C. L¨ oschnauer, M. Aspelmeyer, S. Hong, and S. Gr¨ oblacher, Remote quantum entanglement between two micromechanical os- cillators, Nature 556, 473 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    Ockeloen-Korppi, E

    C. Ockeloen-Korppi, E. Damsk¨ agg, J.-M. Pirkkalainen, M. Asjad, A. Clerk, F. Massel, M. Woolley, and M. Sil- lanp¨ a¨ a, Stabilized entanglement of massive mechanical oscillators, Nature 556 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    M. Bild, M. Fadel, Y. Yang, U. von L¨ upke, P. Mar- tin, A. Bruno, and Y. Chu, Schr¨ odinger cat states of a 16-microgram mechanical oscillator, Science 380, 274 (2023)

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Galinskiy, G

    I. Galinskiy, G. Enzian, M. Parniak, and E. S. Polzik, Nonclassical correlations between photons and phonons of center-of-mass motion of a mechanical oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 173605 (2024)

    work page 2024

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Omahen, S

    A. Omahen, S. Storz, M. Bild, D. Scheiwiller, M. Fadel, and Y. Chu, An ultra-cold mechanical quantum sensor for tests of new physics (2025), arXiv:2507.02653 [quant- ph]

    2025 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Neumeier, M

    L. Neumeier, M. Ciampini, O. Romero-Isart, M. As- pelmeyer, and N. Kiesel, Fast quantum interference of a nanoparticle via optical potential control, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 121, e2306953121 (2024)

    2024

  3. [11]

    Roda-Llordes, A

    M. Roda-Llordes, A. Riera-Campeny, D. Candoli, T. Grochowski, P., and O. Romero-Isart, Macro- scopic quantum superpositions via dynamics in a wide double-well potential, Physical Review Letters 132, 10.1103/physrevlett.132.023601 (2024)

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    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- ence 367, 892 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    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, Nature 595, 373 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    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, Nature 595, 378 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Ranfagni, K

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

    2022

  8. [16]

    Kamba, R

    M. Kamba, R. Shimizu, and K. Aikawa, Nanoscale feed- back control of six degrees of freedom of a near-sphere, Nature Communications 14, 10.1038/s41467-023-43745- 7 (2023). 13

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    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, Nature Physics 19, 1009 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    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

  11. [19]

    J. M. Goodkind, The superconducting gravimeter, Re- view of Scientific Instruments 70, 4131 (1999)

    1999

  12. [20]

    File and R

    J. File and R. G. Mills, Observation of persistent current in a superconducting solenoid, Phys. Rev. Lett. 10, 93 (1963)

    1963

  13. [21]

    Romero-Isart, L

    O. Romero-Isart, L. Clemente, C. Navau, A. Sanchez, and J. Cirac, Quantum magnetomechanics with levitat- ing superconducting microspheres, Physical review let- ters 109, 147205 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    J. A. Devlin, E. Wursten, J. A. Harrington, T. Higuchi, P. E. Blessing, M. J. Borchert, S. Erlewein, J. J. Hansen, J. Morgner, M. A. Bohman, A. H. Mooser, C. Smorra, M. Wiesinger, K. Blaum, Y. Matsuda, C. Ospelkaus, W. Quint, J. Walz, Y. Yamazaki, and S. Ulmer, Super- conducti...

    2019

  15. [24]

    van Waarde, The lead zeppelin: a force sensor without a handle, Ph.D

    B. van Waarde, The lead zeppelin: a force sensor without a handle, Ph.D. thesis, Leiden University (2016)

    2016

  16. [25]

    Gutierrez Latorre, G

    M. Gutierrez Latorre, G. Higgins, A. Paradkar, T. Bauch, and W. Wieczorek, Superconducting microsphere mag- netically levitated in an anharmonic potential with inte- grated magnetic readout, Phys. Rev. Appl. 19, 054047 (2023)

    2023

  17. [26]

    Schmidt, R

    P. Schmidt, R. Claessen, G. Higgins, J. Hofer, J. J. Hansen, P. Asenbaum, M. Zemlicka, K. Uhl, R. Kleiner, R. Gross, H. Huebl, M. Trupke, and M. Aspelmeyer, Re- mote sensing of a levitated superconductor with a flux- tunable microwave cavity, Phys. Rev. Appl. 22, 014078 (2024)

    2024

  18. [27]

    B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, M. R. Aber- nathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt, M. Agathos, K. Agatsuma, N. Aggarwal, O. D. Aguiar, L. Aiello, A. Ain, P. Ajith, and B. Allen (LIGO Scien- tific Collaborat...

    2016

  19. [28]

    R. D. Delaney, M. D. Urmey, S. Mittal, B. M. Brubaker, J. M. Kindem, P. S. Burns, C. A. Regal, and K. W. Lehn- ert, Superconducting-qubit readout via low-backaction electro-optic transduction, Nature 606, 489 (2022)

    2022

  20. [29]

    Meesala, D

    S. Meesala, D. Lake, S. Wood, P. Chiappina, C. Zhong, A. D. Beyer, M. D. Shaw, L. Jiang, and O. Painter, Quan- tum entanglement between optical and microwave pho- tonic qubits, Phys. Rev. X 14, 031055 (2024)

    2024

  21. [30]

    Arnold, T

    G. Arnold, T. Werner, R. Sahu, L. N. Kapoor, L. Qiu, and J. M. Fink, All-optical superconducting qubit read- out, Nature Physics , 1 (2025)

    2025

  22. [31]

    Hofer and M

    J. Hofer and M. Aspelmeyer, Analytic solutions to the maxwell–london equations and levitation force for a superconducting sphere in a quadrupole field, Physica Scripta 94, 125508 (2019)

    2019

  23. [32]

    Supplementary material,

  24. [33]

    L. H. V. F. ao, R. I. Martin, J. ao M. S. Sakamoto, M. C. M. Teixeira, and C. Kitano, Wide dynamic range quadrature interferometer with high-gain approach and sliding mode control, Opt. Express 27, 25031 (2019)

    2019

  25. [34]

    A. D. Fisher and C. Warde, Simple closed-loop system for real-time optical phase measurement, Opt. Lett. 4, 131 (1979)

    1979

  26. [35]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Introduction to quantum noise, measurement, and amplification, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  27. [36]

    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

  28. [37]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  29. [38]

    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. X 13, 021023 (2023)

    2023

  30. [39]

    B. Melo, D. Veldhuizen, G. F. M. Tomassi, N. Meyer, and R. Quidant, Cooling of an optically levitated nanopar- ticle via measurement-free coherent feedback (2025), arXiv:2506.21341 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Hunger, T

    D. Hunger, T. Steinmetz, Y. Colombe, C. Deutsch, T. Haensch, and J. Reichel, Fiber fabry-perot cavity with high finesse, New J. Phys. 12 (2010)

    2010

  32. [41]

    Muller, E

    A. Muller, E. B. Flagg, J. R. Lawall, and G. S. Solomon, Ultrahigh-finesse, low-mode-volume fabry-perot micro- cavity, Opt. Lett. 35, 2293 (2010)

    2010

  33. [42]

    J. Fait, S. Putz, G. Wachter, J. Schalko, U. Schmid, M. Arndt, and M. Trupke, High finesse microcavities in the optical telecom o-band, Applied Physics Letters 119, 221112 (2021)

    2021

  34. [43]

    A. S. Abdelatief, A. Renders, M. K. Alqedra, J. J. Hansen, D. Hunger, L. Rippe, A. Walther, et al., Micro- cavity length stabilization for fluorescence enhancement using schemes based on higher-order spatial modes, Re- view of Scientific Instruments 96 (2025)

    2025

  35. [44]

    Gutierrez, J

    M. Gutierrez, J. Hofer, M. Rudolph, and W. Wiec- zorek, Chip-based superconducting traps for levitation of micrometer-sized superconducting particles, Supercon- ductor Science and Technology 33, 105002 (2020)

    2020

  36. [45]

    Navau, S

    C. Navau, S. Minniberger, M. Trupke, and A. Sanchez, Levitation of superconducting microrings for quantum magnetomechanics, Phys. Rev. B 103, 174436 (2021)

    2021

  37. [46]

    Hofer, A numerical approach to levitated superconduc- tors and its application to a superconducting cylinder in a quadrupole field, Physica Scripta 99, 095526 (2024)

    J. Hofer, A numerical approach to levitated superconduc- tors and its application to a superconducting cylinder in a quadrupole field, Physica Scripta 99, 095526 (2024)

    2024

  38. [47]

    Bort-Soldevila, J

    N. Bort-Soldevila, J. Cunill-Subiranas, N. Del-Valle, W. Wieczorek, G. Higgins, M. Trupke, and C. Navau, Modeling magnetically levitated superconducting ellip- soids, cylinders, and cuboids for quantum magnetome- chanics, Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 043046 (2024)

    2024

  39. [48]

    C. M. DeWitt and D. Rickles, eds., The Role of Gravita- tion in Physics: Report from the 1957 Chapel Hill Con- ference (Max Planck Research Library for the History and Development of Knowledge, 2011)

    1957

  40. [49]

    H. Pino, J. Prat-Camps, K. Sinha, B. P. Venkatesh, and 14 O. Romero-Isart, On-chip quantum interference of a su- perconducting microsphere, Quantum Science and Tech- nology 3, 025001 (2018)

    2018

  41. [50]

    Krisnanda, G

    T. Krisnanda, G. Y. Tham, M. Paternostro, and T. Pa- terek, Observable quantum entanglement due to gravity, npj Quantum Information 6, 12 (2020)

    2020

  42. [51]

    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, Massive quantum systems as inter- faces of quantum mechanics and gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 015003 (2025)

    2025

  43. [52]

    Hansen, S

    J. Hansen, S. Minniberger, I. Dominik, P. Asen- baum, G. Higgins, R. G. Povey, P. Schmidt, J. Hofer, R. Claessen, M. Aspelmeyer, and M. Trupke, Data used in the article ”optical interferometric readout of a magnetically levitated superconducting microsphere”, 10.5281/zenodo.16...

    2025 doi

  44. [53]

    Cheng, J

    Z. Cheng, J. Liang, K. Kawamura, H. Zhou, H. Asamura, H. Uratani, J. Tiwari, S. Graham, Y. Ohno, Y. Nagai, T. Feng, N. Shigekawa, and D. Cahill, High thermal con- ductivity in wafer-scale cubic silicon carbide crystals, Na- ture Communications 13 (2022)

    2022

  45. [54]

    Hofer, R

    J. Hofer, R. Gross, G. Higgins, H. Huebl, O. F. Kieler, R. Kleiner, D. Koelle, P. Schmidt, J. A. Slater, M. Trupke, K. Uhl, T. Weimann, W. Wieczorek, and M. Aspelmeyer, High- q magnetic levitation and control of superconducting microspheres at millikelvin tempera- tures, Phys....

    2023

  46. [55]

    Neuhaus and et al., Pyrpl (2024), version 0.9.4.0 Avail- able at: https://pyrpl.readthedocs.io/en/latest/#

    L. Neuhaus and et al., Pyrpl (2024), version 0.9.4.0 Avail- able at: https://pyrpl.readthedocs.io/en/latest/#

    2024

  47. [56]

    M. N. Polyanskiy, Refractiveindex.info database of opti- cal constants, Scientific Data 11, 94 (2024)

    2024

  48. [57]

    Horowitz, A

    M. Horowitz, A. A. Silvidi, S. F. Malaker, and J. G. Daunt, The specific heat of lead in the temperature range 1°k to 75 °k, Phys. Rev. 88, 1182 (1952)

    1952

  49. [58]

    Chanin and J

    G. Chanin and J. P. Torre, Critical-field curve of super- conducting lead, Physical Review B 5, 4357 (1972)

    1972

  50. [59]

    Tinkham, Introduction to superconductivity, 2nd ed., Dover books on physics (Dover Publ., Mineola, NY, 2015)

    M. Tinkham, Introduction to superconductivity, 2nd ed., Dover books on physics (Dover Publ., Mineola, NY, 2015)

    2015

  51. [60]

    D. M. Ginsberg, Upper limit for quasi-particle recombi- nation time in a superconductor, Physical Review Letters 8, 204 (1962)

    1962

  52. [61]

    S. B. Kaplan, C. C. Chi, D. N. Langenberg, J. J. Chang, S. Jafarey, and D. J. Scalapino, Quasiparticle and phonon lifetimes in superconductors, Physical Review B 14, 4854 (1976)

    1976

  53. [62]

    Hebestreit, M

    E. Hebestreit, M. Frimmer, R. Reimann, C. Dellago, F. Ricci, and L. Novotny, Calibration and energy mea- surement of optically levitated nanoparticle sensors, Re- view of Scientific Instruments 89, 033111 (2018)

    2018

  54. [63]

    Kubo, The fluctuation-dissipation theorem, Reports on Progress in Physics 29, 255 (1966)

    R. Kubo, The fluctuation-dissipation theorem, Reports on Progress in Physics 29, 255 (1966)

    1966

  55. [64]

    R. G. Povey, Two-Dimensional Optomechanical Res- onators in Gallium Arsenide, Ph.D. thesis, The Univer- sity of Chicago (2023)

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.