Release and Recapture of Silica Nanoparticles from an Optical Trap in Weightlessness

Christian Vogt; Govindarajan Prakash; Ralf B. Bergmann; Sven Herrmann

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 18 references

Release and Recapture of Silica Nanoparticles from an Optical Trap in Weightlessness

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In 1.5 seconds of weightlessness, a 140-nm silica nanoparticle stayed trapped in an optical trap, was released into a 7-µs free flight, and was recaptured on a path matching straight-line motion.

desk verdict First microgravity levitated-optomechanics data looks credible, but the release-recapture 'agreement' needs quantitative support before it's fully convincing. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.08666 v1 pith:YZVSOHBO submitted 2025-09-10 physics.optics physics.space-phquant-ph

Govindarajan Prakash , Sven Herrmann , Ralf B. Bergmann , Christian Vogt This is my paper

classification physics.opticsphysics.space-phquant-ph

keywords levitatedoptomechanicsopticaltrappingsilicananoparticlemicrogravityreleaseandrecapturedroptowerfree-fallexperiments

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

Levitated optomechanics isolates a tiny particle from its environment so it can act as an ultrasensitive force sensor or as a test mass for quantum superpositions at large masses. This paper aims to show that such experiments can be moved into weightlessness, where gravity no longer pulls the particle out of its trap and the trap can even be switched off while the particle remains available. It reports the first levitated optomechanics experiment in a microgravity environment: a 140-nm silica nanoparticle is trapped by a focused 1550-nm laser during 1.5 s of free fall, and its trap frequencies are unchanged from ground-based measurements. The particle is then deliberately released by switching off the laser and recaptured after 7 µs, with the recapture position agreeing with a linear free-flight prediction made from the position and velocity at switch-off. If correct, this opens a path toward space-based matter-wave interferometry with nanoparticles and toward force measurements on freely falling test particles with long interrogation times.

What carries the argument

The central mechanism is an optical trap built around a parabolic mirror, with a single photodiode reading the interferometric signal between scattered light and light reflected from the mirror. An acousto-optic modulator switches the trap off and on, creating a dark interval in which the particle is free. The decisive analysis objects are the three fundamental trap axes (x, y, z), extracted with tenth-order Butterworth filters, and the linear free-flight law: with the laser off, the position evolves as x(t) = x0 + v0 t. The velocity v0 comes from a voltage-to-position calibration based on the equipartition theorem at room temperature. Equation (1), the standard relation between trap frequen

What would settle it

Measure the vacuum pressure in the chamber during flight and, using the known gas-drag coefficient for a 140-nm silica sphere, compute whether the particle loses a measurable fraction of its velocity over 7 µs; if the predicted recapture position shifts by more than the measured scatter, the force-free assumption fails. Alternatively, replace the single photodiode with a quadrant detector or add a second detection beam and record the particle's position during the dark interval, then compare the measured flight path with the linear extrapolation from the equipartition-calibrated velocity.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper claims the first levitated optomechanics experiment in microgravity, including the first release-recapture of an optically trapped nanoparticle in weightlessness. The setup uses a 500-mW, 1550-nm beam focused by a high-numerical-aperture parabolic mirror; a single photodiode records the interferometric signal between light scattered by the particle and light reflected from the mirror. Trap frequencies measured at several laser powers follow the standard focusing-beam model, with no difference between flight and ground data. In release-recapture runs, the trapping laser is switched off for 7 µs; position and velocity at the switch-off moment are obtained by convert

Load-bearing premise

The central claim collapses if the particle is not actually force-free during the 7-µs dark interval: the paper assumes negligible gas drag and ignores laser switching dynamics, but never reports the vacuum pressure that would make the drag premise checkable; a second load-bearing assumption is that the room-temperature equipartition calibration gives the true absolute velocity at switch-off.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the demonstration is correct, levitated optomechanics can operate in weightlessness, removing gravitational sag and allowing much longer free evolution of the particle without a confining trap.
A single photodiode suffices to reconstruct the particle's motion in all three axes while the motion stays in the harmonic or mildly anharmonic regime, simplifying the hardware needed for space.
With feedback cooling to millikelvin temperatures, the free-flight time should extend from microseconds to milliseconds, enabling matter-wave interferometry with macroscopic path separations.
The release-recapture sequence provides a way to study force-free motion and, with longer flight times, to sense residual inertial or gravitational forces on a free-flying test particle.
Releasing the particle at the right phase can cool its center-of-mass motion rather than heat it, a useful preparation step for quantum experiments.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper: the release-recapture trajectory itself acts as a differential accelerometer; in a longer free fall, fitting the drift curve could set an upper limit on residual gas drag and on stray electric or optical forces, which the current 7-µs window is too short to resolve.
Beyond the paper: timing the release to the oscillation phase could be developed into a deterministic cooling protocol, since the observed z-axis cooling suggests that a phase-controlled release can convert trap energy into a chosen center-of-mass state without feedback.
Beyond the paper: the equipartition-based calibration ties absolute velocities to the assumption of room-temperature thermal equilibrium; an independent calibration using a known driven oscillation or a second detection axis would test whether the reported free-flight agreement depends on that model.
Beyond the paper: the single-photodiode approach is limited to the harmonic regime, so switching to a quadrant photodiode, which the paper itself suggests, would allow release-recapture studies in the anharmonic regime and provide direct directional information for force reconstruction.

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

First thing to know: this is the first reported levitated optomechanics data in microgravity, and the central feasibility claim—one nanoparticle stays trapped through 1.5 s of free fall and can be released and recaptured with a trajectory consistent with free linear motion—looks credible. Second: the quantitative backing is thinner than the abstract suggests, and the authors know it; they flag most of the limitations themselves.

What's genuinely new: trap frequency measurements under weightlessness (no shift from gravity, as expected), and a 7 µs release-recapture cycle with three-axis reconstruction from a single photodiode. The single-photodiode trick is not new in principle, but doing it in free fall with the analysis chain is a useful step for MAQRO-type missions. The paper is also honest: it discloses the beam-waist discrepancy from iris misalignment, says switching dynamics are ignored, and admits the analysis only works in the harmonic regime. Those are real caveats, not buried.

The soft spots: no error bars, no run counts, no vacuum pressure anywhere in the text. Pressure matters for the force-free assumption, though over 7 µs even mbar-level gas would be negligible, so it's a missing detail rather than a deal-breaker. The bigger issue is that 'good agreement' in Fig. 5 is never quantified. The stress-test point about the equipartition calibration is right but less damning than it might seem: a global scale error cancels in the predicted-vs-after-recapture comparison, so the linear-flight consistency is still meaningful, just not a validation of absolute velocity or position. What's missing is a residual or timing analysis—does the after-recapture oscillation phase and amplitude actually match the extrapolated initial conditions? Without raw traces or a residual plot, the release-recapture claim is underdetermined. That's addressable in revision.

For whom: this is for the levitated optomechanics and space-quantum community. It's a platform feasibility result, not new physics. It deserves peer review—it's the first flight data point and will be cited either way. I'd send it out, but ask for an honest run summary (number of drops, number of particles), the chamber pressure, and a quantitative comparison between predicted and measured recapture trajectories.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper reports on a levitated optomechanics experiment carried out in the GraviTower Bremen drop tower, providing about 1.5 s of microgravity. A 140 nm silica nanoparticle is optically trapped by a 1550 nm laser and its motion is detected with a single photodiode. The authors measure trap frequencies versus laser power, compare flight and laboratory data, and perform release–recapture runs in which the trapping laser is switched off for 7 µs and then switched back on. The central claim is that the particle remains available after the free-flight interval and that its post-recapture motion is consistent with a force-free linear extrapolation from the release state. The paper frames this as the first demonstration of levitated optomechanics in a weightlessness environment and as a step toward space missions for matter-wave interferometry and force sensing.

Significance. If the claims are quantitatively supported, this is an important platform demonstration for levitated optomechanics in microgravity. The setup is comparatively simple (single photodiode, fiber amplifier, AOM, parabolic mirror), and the free-flight prediction is in principle predictive: it uses no adjustable parameter beyond the already calibrated position and velocity at switch-off. The authors also disclose the beam-waist discrepancy in the trap-frequency fit (Eq. 1), which is an honest limitation. The value of the paper lies in showing that a nanoparticle can be released, allowed to fly freely for several microseconds, and recaptured with a trajectory that follows a ballistic model. The manuscript does not report new physics, but a credible feasibility result of this kind is publishable if the evidence is documented rigorously.

major comments (3)

[Results, Release-Recapture Experiments (Fig. 5)] The central claim of a successful 7 µs release–recapture cycle rests on the sentence 'We generally find good agreement' after Fig. 5. No quantitative metric is given: no error bars, residual RMS, number of runs, or number of particles. Since the predicted free flight is a linear extrapolation from the same calibrated and filtered time series used to define the post-recapture position, a global calibration error cancels; the agreement can only validate the phase and linearity of the motion. The manuscript itself states that switching dynamics are ignored and that the analysis fails for strong anharmonic motion, which makes a residual/timing analysis essential. Please report, for every run, the RMS deviation between the predicted and measured post-recapture trajectory over the first few oscillation cycles, with uncertainties, and state how many runs and particles were used.
[Results, Release-Recapture Experiments; Methods] The force-free model assumes that no significant forces act during the free flight: 'Switching dynamics in the laser are ignored' and gas drag is not discussed. The vacuum pressure is never given in the paper, so the drag premise cannot be checked. Over 7 µs drag is likely small at mbar pressures, but this needs a number. State the operating pressure (or an upper limit), give the resulting gas-damping time constant compared to 7 µs, and characterize the AOM switch-off/on transient (extinction ratio, residual optical power, and any optical force during the off interval). This is load-bearing for the linear-trajectory model that connects release and recapture.
[Methods, position calibration (ref. [18])] The voltage-to-position calibration is derived by assuming the particle's center-of-mass kinetic energy equals room-temperature thermal energy (equipartition). The predicted free-flight velocity is proportional to this calibration scale, and the post-recapture measured positions share the same scale. Consequently, agreement between prediction and measurement cannot validate the absolute calibration; a global scale error cancels in the comparison. The paper should state this explicitly and provide either an independent calibration check (e.g., using the known particle radius and polarizability, or a Rayleigh scattering model) or a quantitative uncertainty on the calibrated positions and velocities, showing the agreement is robust to that uncertainty.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (1)] Please define all symbols explicitly: α is the real part of the polarizability, but for a silica sphere the Clausius-Mossotti form should be stated; λ (wavelength) appears in ω_ax but is not defined. Also, the expected beam waist / effective NA used for the discrepancy statement in Fig. 2 is not given.
[Fig. 5 caption] The abbreviation TOF is used but never defined; write 'time of flight' or replace with 'free flight'. The colors in the caption are not fully consistent with the figure legend (e.g., orange dashed line is called 'During' in the legend but 'predicted free flight' in the text).
[Fig. 4 and Fig. 5] It is difficult to see quantitative details in the plotted signals. Please add axis labels with units, indicate the shaded switch-off interval in both figures, and state whether the after-recapture data are shown with the same Butterworth filter and phase correction as the before data.
[Trap-frequency comparison] The statement 'No differences in trap frequencies are observed between the presence and absence of gravity' is made without error bars or a statistical comparison. Please provide the uncertainties from the spectral fits and, if possible, the number of flight/lab runs used for the comparison.
[Text and references] There are several grammatical and formatting errors, e.g., 'Hebestreit contain.demonstrated', 'Asledge,running...', and 'Silicananoparticles' without spaces. Also, 'Data availability' says data are available on reasonable request; given the absence of quantitative residuals, providing at least a representative raw dataset as supplementary material would strengthen the paper.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the release-recapture comparison is a genuine consistency check, and the only fitted parameter (beam waist) is disclosed and not used as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are experimental feasibility demonstrations, not first-principles derivations. The trap-frequency model (Eq. 1) is standard theory; fitting the beam waist ω0 to the measured frequencies is an honest characterization, not a hidden prediction, and the discrepancy is explicitly attributed to aperture clipping. The release-recapture analysis predicts free-flight motion from position and velocity estimated at the switch-off time and then compares that extrapolation to separately recorded post-recapture data. The prediction uses data recorded before the laser is switched off, so it is not constructed from the after data; the agreement is therefore not forced by definition. The position calibration via equipartition (ref. [18]) is external to this paper and enters both the prediction and the after-recapture reconstruction, so a global scale error would cancel in the comparison; this weakens any claim of absolute calibration but does not make the force-free test circular. No load-bearing self-citation chain is present: the authors' prior work appears only in mission/context references ([7], [8], [13]) and is not used to justify the release-recapture result. The lack of quantitative residuals or event counts is a reporting/verification weakness, not a circularity. Accordingly the derivation chain is self-contained and no step reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

Everything the central claim rests on beyond standard equipment: one disclosed fitted parameter (ω0), an unstated calibration scale, and several domain assumptions about trap physics, equipartition, force-free flight, photodiode linearity, and microgravity quality. The most consequential gap is the absent pressure measurement, which the free-flight and calibration premises both depend on. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)

beam waist ω0 (Eq. 1 fit) = 0.7 µm (effective NA ≈ 0.7)
Free parameter in the least-squares fit of Eq. 1 to trap frequency versus power; the paper notes the value disagrees with the expected NA and attributes it to iris misalignment.
photodiode voltage-to-position scale = not stated (derived from kT/equipartition)
Absolute positions and velocities used for the free-flight prediction come from calibrating the interference signal with the room-temperature kinetic energy (ref. [18]); no calibration uncertainty is given.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Eq. 1 gives the radial and axial trap frequencies of a Gaussian-beam gradient trap.
Standard paraxial optical-tweezer result, invoked to extract ω0 from the frequency-versus-power fit; the model contains no gravity term, so equal frequencies in μg and on the ground are expected a priori.
domain assumption The trapped particle's center-of-mass kinetic energy equals room-temperature thermal energy (equipartition).
Used to convert photodiode voltage to absolute position (Methods, ref. [18]); requires the COM to be thermalized at 300 K despite the trapping laser and unstated vacuum pressure.
domain assumption No significant forces act on the particle during the trap-off interval; motion is linear.
Stated verbatim in Results: 'We do not expect any significant forces on the particle and therefore assume linear movement.' Laser switching transients are ignored; gas drag is unquantified.
domain assumption The single-photodiode backscatter signal is a separable, linear map of the three harmonic trap modes.
The 3-axis decomposition relies on 10th-order Butterworth bandpass filters centered on the fundamental frequencies; the authors note this breaks down for mixed and anharmonic terms.
domain assumption The GraviTower sledge provides microgravity of sufficient quality during the measurement windows.
The free-flying air-bearing decoupled sledge is taken to provide weightlessness; residual acceleration levels during the 1.5 s flight are not quantified in the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Release and Recapture of Silica Nanoparticles from an Optical Trap in Weightlessness." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZVSOHBO

@misc{pith2026250908666,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Release and Recapture of Silica Nanoparticles from an Optical Trap in Weightlessness},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZVSOHBO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08666}
}

read the original abstract

Optically trapped Silica nanoparticles are a promising tool for precise sensing of gravitational or inertial forces and fundamental physics, including tests of quantum mechanics at 'large' mass scales. This field, called levitated optomechanics can greatly benefit from an application in weightlessness. In this paper we demonstrate the feasibility of such setups in a microgravity environment for the first time. Our experiment is operated in the GraviTower Bremen that provides up to 2.5 s of free fall. System performance and first release-recapture experiments, where the particle is no longer trapped are conducted in microgravity. This demonstration should also be seen in the wider context of preparing space missions on the topic of levitated optomechanics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08666 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Schematic drawing. Experimental setup to optically trap Silica nanoparticles in vacuum. Detailed description in the text. starting trigger. Results The aim of our experiments is to demonstrate the feasibility for levitated optomechanical experiments in a microgravity environment. Therefore, trap frequency measurements at different laser powers were compared for flight and laboratory data and the particle’s movem… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Trap frequencies. Measured in dependency of trapping power. Dots represent measurements while solid lines are fitted to Eq 1 leaving ω0 as free parameter. Release- Recapture Experiments In our free flight experiments in microgravity the particle was released from the optical trap and recaptured. The free flying time is limited to 10 µs by the particle’s center of mass velocity, which was not artificially reduced for… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Photo diode signal. Recorded interference signal for a free flight measurement (solid, blue), where the trapping laser is switched off for 7 µs at t = 0 (shaded, gray). The signal is filtered (see chapter methods) to extract the movement in all three directions. Adding the filtered data up gives the dashed orange curve. anharmonic region of the trap. These movements can well be described and are consistent with ex… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 4 linked inside Pith

[1]

Carlesso, A

M. Carlesso, A. Bassi, M. Paternostro, and H. Ul- bricht, New Journal of Physics21, 10.1088/1367- 2630/ab41c1(2019),arXiv: 1906.04513Publisher: IOP Publishing

arXiv 2019
[2]

T.Westphal,H.Hepach,J.Pfaff,andM.Aspelmeyer, \bibfield journal \bibinfo journal Nature\ \textbf \bibinfo volume 591,\ \bibinfo pages 225 (\bibinfo year2021)
[3]

Y. Y. Fein, P. Geyer, P. Zwick, F. Kiałka, S. Pedalino, M.Mayor, S.Gerlich,andM.Arndt,\bibfieldjournal \bibinfo journal Nature Physics\ \textbf \bibinfo vol- ume15,\\bibinfopages1242(\bibinfoyear2019)
[4]

Millen, T

J. Millen, T. S. Monteiro, R. Pettit, and A. N. Vami- vakas, \bibfield journal \bibinfo journal Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society (Great Britain)\ \textbf \bibinfo volume 83,\ \bibinfo pages 026401 (\bibinfoyear2020),arXiv: 1907.08198Publisher: IOP Publishing

arXiv 1907
[5]

Gonzalez-Ballestero, M

C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, M. Aspelmeyer, L. Novotny, R. Quidant, and O. Romero-Isart, \bibfield journal \bibinfo journal Science\ \textbf \bibinfo volume 374,\\bibinfopageseabg3027(\bibinfoyear2021)
[6]

Kaltenbaek, G

R. Kaltenbaek, G. Hechenblaikner, N. Kiesel, O. Romero-Isart, K. C. Schwab, U. Johann, and M. Aspelmeyer, \bibfield journal \bibinfo journal Experimental Astronomy\ \textbf \bibinfo volume 34,\\bibinfopages123(\bibinfoyear2012)
[7]

Kaltenbaek, M

R. Kaltenbaek, M. Arndt, M. Aspelmeyer, P. F. Barker, A. Bassi, J. Bateman, A. Belenchia, J. Bergé, C. Braxmaier, S. Bose, B. Christophe, G. D. Cole, C. Curceanu, A. Datta, M. Debiossac, U. Delić, L. Diósi, A. A. Geraci, S. Gerlich, C. Guerlin, G. Hechenblaikner, A. Heidmann, S. Herrmann, K. Hornberger, U. Johann, N. Kiesel, C. Lämmerzahl, T. W. LeBrun, G...
[8]

Homans, E

J. Homans, E. Simcox, J. Wardak, L. d. P. Barbara, T.M.Fuchs,R.Muffato,F.Concepcion,A.Dragomir, C.Vogt, P.Nisbet-Jones, C.Bridges,andH.Ulbricht, \bibinfo title An experimental platform for levitated mechanicsinspace(2025),versionNumber: 3

2025

Show all 18 references

[9]

Hebestreit, M

E. Hebestreit, M. Frimmer, R. Reimann, and L.Novotny,\bibfieldjournal\bibinfojournalPhysical Review Letters\ \textbf \bibinfo volume 121,\ \bib- infopages1(\bibinfoyear2018),arXiv: 1801.01169

arXiv
[10]

Vovrosh,Parametric feedback cooling and squeezing of optically levitated particles, Ph.D

J. Vovrosh,Parametric feedback cooling and squeezing of optically levitated particles, Ph.D. thesis,UniversityofSouthampton(2018)

2018
[11]

Vovrosh, M

J. Vovrosh, M. Rashid, D. Hempston, J. Bateman, M.Paternostro,andH.Ulbricht,\bibfieldjournal\bib- infojournalJournaloftheOpticalSocietyofAmerica B\\textbf\bibinfovolume34,\\bibinfopages1421 (\bibinfoyear2017),arXiv: 1603.02917

arXiv
[12]

M.D.Summers,D.R.Burnham,andD.McGloin,\bib- field journal \bibinfo journal Optics Express\ \textbf \bibinfo volume 16,\ \bibinfo pages 7739 (\bibinfo year2008)
[13]

Raudonis, A

M. Raudonis, A. Roura, M. Meister, C. Lotz, L. Over- meyer, S.Herrmann, A.Gierse, C.Lämmerzahl, N.P. Bigelow, M. Lachmann, B. Piest, N. Gaaloul, E. M. Rasel, C. Schubert, W. Herr, C. Deppner, H. Ahlers, W.Ertmer, J.RWilliams, N.Lundblad,andL.Wörner, \bibfield journal \bibinfo ...
[14]

ZARM,ZARM Drop Tower Bremen - User Manual (2009)issue: 0

2009
[15]

Donnelly and E

D. Donnelly and E. Rogers, \bibfield journal \bibinfo journalAmericanJournalofPhysics\\textbf\bibinfo volume73,\\bibinfopages938(\bibinfoyear2005)
[16]

Gieseler, B

J. Gieseler, B. Deutsch, R. Quidant, and L. Novotny, \bibfieldjournal\bibinfojournalPhysicalReviewLet- ters\ \textbf \bibinfo volume 109,\ \bibinfo pages 103603(\bibinfoyear2012)
[17]

Hempston,Force detection in levitated optome- chanics, Ph.D

D. Hempston,Force detection in levitated optome- chanics, Ph.D. thesis, University of Southampton (2017)

2017
[18]

Frimmer, K

M. Frimmer, K. Luszcz, S. Ferreiro, V. Jain, E. Hebe- streit, and L. Novotny, \bibfield journal \bibinfo jour- nal Physical Review A\ \textbf \bibinfo volume 95,\ \bibinfopages061801(\bibinfoyear2017). 5

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Carlesso, A

M. Carlesso, A. Bassi, M. Paternostro, and H. Ul- bricht, New Journal of Physics21, 10.1088/1367- 2630/ab41c1(2019),arXiv: 1906.04513Publisher: IOP Publishing

arXiv 2019

[2] [2]

T.Westphal,H.Hepach,J.Pfaff,andM.Aspelmeyer, \bibfield journal \bibinfo journal Nature\ \textbf \bibinfo volume 591,\ \bibinfo pages 225 (\bibinfo year2021)

[3] [3]

Y. Y. Fein, P. Geyer, P. Zwick, F. Kiałka, S. Pedalino, M.Mayor, S.Gerlich,andM.Arndt,\bibfieldjournal \bibinfo journal Nature Physics\ \textbf \bibinfo vol- ume15,\\bibinfopages1242(\bibinfoyear2019)

[4] [4]

Millen, T

J. Millen, T. S. Monteiro, R. Pettit, and A. N. Vami- vakas, \bibfield journal \bibinfo journal Reports on progress in physics. Physical Society (Great Britain)\ \textbf \bibinfo volume 83,\ \bibinfo pages 026401 (\bibinfoyear2020),arXiv: 1907.08198Publisher: IOP Publishing

arXiv 1907

[5] [5]

Gonzalez-Ballestero, M

C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, M. Aspelmeyer, L. Novotny, R. Quidant, and O. Romero-Isart, \bibfield journal \bibinfo journal Science\ \textbf \bibinfo volume 374,\\bibinfopageseabg3027(\bibinfoyear2021)

[6] [6]

Kaltenbaek, G

R. Kaltenbaek, G. Hechenblaikner, N. Kiesel, O. Romero-Isart, K. C. Schwab, U. Johann, and M. Aspelmeyer, \bibfield journal \bibinfo journal Experimental Astronomy\ \textbf \bibinfo volume 34,\\bibinfopages123(\bibinfoyear2012)

[7] [7]

Kaltenbaek, M

R. Kaltenbaek, M. Arndt, M. Aspelmeyer, P. F. Barker, A. Bassi, J. Bateman, A. Belenchia, J. Bergé, C. Braxmaier, S. Bose, B. Christophe, G. D. Cole, C. Curceanu, A. Datta, M. Debiossac, U. Delić, L. Diósi, A. A. Geraci, S. Gerlich, C. Guerlin, G. Hechenblaikner, A. Heidmann, S. Herrmann, K. Hornberger, U. Johann, N. Kiesel, C. Lämmerzahl, T. W. LeBrun, G...

[8] [8]

Homans, E

J. Homans, E. Simcox, J. Wardak, L. d. P. Barbara, T.M.Fuchs,R.Muffato,F.Concepcion,A.Dragomir, C.Vogt, P.Nisbet-Jones, C.Bridges,andH.Ulbricht, \bibinfo title An experimental platform for levitated mechanicsinspace(2025),versionNumber: 3

2025