Momentum Diffusion, Decoherence and Drag Force on a Magnetic Nanoparticle

Agya Sewara Alam; Anupam Mazumdar

REVIEW 5 major objections 5 minor 61 references

For a diamagnetic nanoparticle in a thermal electromagnetic field, decoherence is dominated by time-dependent electric-field fluctuations, and for pure nanodiamond the magnetic channel is about 9.14e-13 times the dielectric one.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 21:01 UTC pith:QWR2BY2M

load-bearing objection Useful extension of Sinha-Milonni to magnetic dipoles, with the right caveat already in the paper: the headline suppression ratio assumes χ_I=0 and the absorption term is unmeasured, so the formulas are structurally right but not yet closed for real nanodiamonds. the 5 major comments →

arxiv 2602.21518 v3 pith:QWR2BY2M submitted 2026-02-25 quant-ph

Momentum Diffusion, Decoherence and Drag Force on a Magnetic Nanoparticle

Agya Sewara Alam , Anupam Mazumdar This is my paper

classification quant-ph

keywords decoherencemagnetic nanoparticlediamagnetic levitationfluctuation-dissipation theoremmomentum diffusiondrag forcethermal electromagnetic fieldnanodiamond

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper derives the full decoherence rate, momentum diffusion, and drag force for a diamagnetic nanoparticle—such as a levitated nanodiamond—sitting in a thermal electromagnetic field. Working in the long-wavelength limit with a point magnetic dipole, the authors show that the previously neglected time-dependent electric-field term in the force dominates over the pure magnetic-gradient term, so any complete account of magnetic decoherence must include it. They further decompose the magnetic polarizability into a scattering part plus an absorption part, and use the fluctuation-dissipation relation to convert momentum diffusion into a spatial decoherence rate. For a pure nanodiamond, the result is a decoherence rate and drag force about 9.14e-13 times as large as those from the dielectric response—negligible for planned levitated-superposition experiments, provided the imaginary magnetic susceptibility is not unexpectedly large. The paper also computes the two-dipole decoherence factor for a pair of adjacent magnetic nanoparticles.

Core claim

Starting from the force F = ∇(m·B) + (1/c²)m×∂ₜE on a magnetic dipole, the paper quantizes the electromagnetic field and evaluates the thermal expectation value of the momentum kick over a time Δt. The momentum diffusion constant 2D = ⟨Δp²⟩/Δt splits into magnetic, electric, and coupled contributions; the electric term dominates, the coupled term partially cancels the magnetic term, and the total is proportional to ∫ dω ω⁸ |α(ω)|² [n²+n]. Using the optical-theorem relation that separates the imaginary polarizability into Rayleigh-scattering and absorption pieces, the diffusion constant becomes a sum of two terms. The decoherence rate γ = (1/ℏ²)⟨Δp²⟩/Δt (Δx)² follows, and the same machinery y

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the imaginary part of the magnetic polarizability, α_I(ω), split through the optical-theorem relation (22) into a scattering piece, (μ₀/6π)(ω/c)³|α(ω)|²β, and an absorption piece, α_Iᵃᵇˢ(ω). The scattering piece is fixed by the Rayleigh/Mie dipole-scattering coefficient, with β = 1/2 for a sphere; the absorption piece is fixed by the imaginary magnetic susceptibility through the bulk-sphere polarizability relation. This decomposition, fed into the fluctuation-dissipation relation between momentum diffusion and field fluctuations, produces the final formulas for the decoherence rate (33), the two-dipole decoherence factor (60), and the drag coefficient (79). The oth

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative results rest on the decomposition in Eq. (22) of the imaginary magnetic polarizability into a Rayleigh-scattering piece plus an absorption piece—and on the value of that absorption piece, which for a levitated nanodiamond has not been measured, as the paper itself concedes in the Discussion.

What would settle it

Measure the imaginary part of the magnetic susceptibility of a levitated nanodiamond (or NV-doped nanodiamond) and evaluate Eqs. (33) and (79). If the resulting decoherence rate or drag coefficient approaches the dielectric-channel value, rather than sitting near the claimed 9.14e-13 ratio, the central conclusion that diamagnetic decoherence is negligible would fail.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

If the absorption part of the magnetic polarizability is negligible, diamagnetic decoherence is far too small to threaten levitated-superposition experiments: for nanodiamond, more than twelve orders below the dielectric channel.
The time-dependent electric-field term, not the magnetic-field gradient, sets the decoherence scale for magnetic nanoparticles; earlier estimates that kept only the magnetic term were incomplete.
A pair of adjacent diamagnetic nanoparticles loses spatial coherence at a rate given by Eq. (60), with the same scattering-plus-absorption split, enabling estimates for two-particle interference proposals.
Thermal radiation exerts a drag on a moving diamagnetic nanoparticle that, like the decoherence rate, is about 9.14e-13 of the dielectric drag for pure nanodiamond, so velocity damping from magnetic fluctuations is negligible.
Anything that raises Im χ_v—impurities, NV centers, or other loss channels—would directly scale the absorption terms in Eqs. (33), (60), and (79), making these formulas the tool for bounding such losses once measured.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The paper's ratios are computed for pure nanodiamond with Im χ_v ≈ 0; a natural extension is to measure Im χ_v in a levitating trap and re-evaluate Eqs. (33) and (79), since the absorption terms depend linearly on it and could in principle outgrow the scattering terms.
Because the magnetic-to-dielectric ratio scales as (χ_R/3)², materials with a stronger diamagnetic response—such as pyrolytic graphite or superconductors—are the natural places to look for observable magnetic-channel decoherence, with superconductors pushing the ratio near 10⁻³.
The two-dipole decoherence factor, computed here for the first time, suggests a clean test: place two magnetic dipoles at variable separation and check the predicted spatial-dependence at fixed temperature.
The paper leaves the detailed frequency dependence of the NV center's magnetic response unmodeled; inserting measured spin-resonance data into α(ω) would turn Eq. (33) into a defect-concentration-specific prediction.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

Useful extension of Sinha-Milonni to magnetic dipoles, with the right caveat already in the paper: the headline suppression ratio assumes χ_I=0 and the absorption term is unmeasured, so the formulas are structurally right but not yet closed for real nanodiamonds.

read the letter

The useful core: they extend the Sinha-Milonni FDT/Rayleigh treatment from electric to magnetic dipoles, including the time-dependent electric-field force term that their own Ref. [32] missed. That term dominates, and they show it. They also give the first two-magnetic-dipole decoherence factor and a drag-force analogue. The physical framework is standard and the derivation follows the familiar logic; the self-correction of [32] is honest and the comparison to the dielectric case (ratio ~1e-13 for pure nanodiamond) is a genuinely useful bound for the QGEM community. This is solid new application work, not a revolution.

The biggest soft spot is real and the authors know it. Eq. (33) has two terms: scattering proportional to a^6 χ_R^2 T^9, and absorption proportional to a^3 χ_I T^6. The second term is controlled by χ_I, which they explicitly say has not been measured in a levitated setup (Discussion, p.19). The stress-test note is right: for 100 nm particles and 300 K, even a small χ_I can make the absorption term dominate, so the headline ratio 9.14e-13 is only the idealized χ_I=0 case. That does not invalidate the paper—the general formulas are what they are—but it means the central quantitative claim is a bound on a model parameter, not a closed prediction for real nanodiamonds. The paper would be stronger if it gave an explicit threshold: for what χ_I does the absorption term catch up with scattering? A one-line estimate would make the result actionable.

There are also internal inconsistencies in the final formulas: Eq. (31) carries an extra a^3 in the absorption prefactor relative to Eq. (23), and Eq. (79) has a suspicious numerical coefficient (41.47) that is not derived step-by-step. These look fixable—the physical arguments in Sections II–IV place the right terms in the right places—but they need a careful pass before experimentalists plug in numbers. The underlying relation γ = Λ(Δx)^2 is standard and the use of the optical theorem is legitimate; the citation pattern is fine, and the self-citation to [32] is actually a correction, not inflation.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. The revision should focus on the coefficient checks and on making the χ_I threshold explicit. I would bring it to a reading group and would cite it once the formulas are cleaned up; the two-dipole decoherence factor in particular is a reference point for future work.

Referee Report

5 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives the momentum-diffusion coefficient, the spatial-decoherence rate, and the thermal drag force for a diamagnetic nanoparticle with a magnetic dipole moment in a blackbody electromagnetic field. It uses the fluctuation-dissipation framework of Ref. [31], adds the time-dependent electric-field force that was omitted in Ref. [32], includes both scattering and absorption contributions to the imaginary part of the magnetic polarizability, and compares the results with the dielectric-nanoparticle results. The central formula is Eq. (33), a decoherence rate with a scattering term proportional to a^6 χ_R^2 T^9 and an absorption term proportional to a^3 χ_I T^6; the two-dipole generalization is Eq. (60) and the drag coefficient is Eq. (79).

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper would provide a useful reference for magnetic-dipole decoherence and drag in levitated nanodiamond experiments, including the QGEM context. The authors explicitly improve on Ref. [32] by including the dominant electric-field term, and the comparison with dielectric cases is a practical output for experiment planning. However, the paper's predictive power is limited by an admitted lack of knowledge of the imaginary part of the magnetic susceptibility of levitated nanodiamonds, and several of the final formulas contain coefficient/dimensional errors. The derivation structure is standard, but the internal inconsistencies prevent the central quantitative claims from being accepted as they stand.

major comments (5)

[Eq. (31) vs. Eq. (23)] Eq. (31) is not the substitution of Eqs. (22)-(29) into Eq. (23). The absorption term in Eq. (23) is (4μ0ℏ²/(3π²c⁵))∫dω ω⁵ (1/β)α_I^abs. Using Eq. (29), α_I^abs=(a³/μ0)[3χI/D], this gives 4ℏ²a³/(3π²c⁵β)∫dω ω⁵[3χI/D][n²+n]. Equation (31) instead has an extra factor a³ multiplying μ0 α_I^abs, so the term is dimensionally inconsistent with its parent Eq. (23) and double-counts the volume dependence of α_I^abs.
[Eqs. (32)-(33), absorption coefficient] From the corrected Eq. (23), the absorption contribution to the momentum diffusion is D_abs = (4ℏ²a³/(3π²c⁵β)) B ∫ dω ω⁵ [n²+n] = (4ℏ²a³c/(3π²β)) B (kBT/ℏc)^6 Γ(6)ζ(5), with B = 3χI/[(3+χR)²+χI²]. Eq. (32) has (ℏ²a³c/(3π²β)) B..., missing a factor of 4. Since γ = D/(2ℏ²), Eq. (33) inherits this error in its second term: the coefficient should be 2a³c/(3π²β), not a³c/(6π²β).
[Eq. (79), absorption coefficient] From Eq. (78) and Eq. (29), the absorption part of the drag coefficient is ξ_abs = (ℏa³/(3π²m)) B (kBT/ℏc)^5 Γ(6)ζ(5) ≈ 4.20 (ℏa³/m) B (kBT/ℏc)^5. Equation (79) gives 41.47 (ℏa³/m) B (kBT/ℏc)^5, which is larger by π². The missing 1/π² appears to originate in the reduction from Eq. (75) to Eq. (77), and it should be re-derived carefully.
[Discussion, p.19; Eq. (33)] The paper states that the imaginary part of the magnetic susceptibility of nanodiamonds in levitated setups has not been measured. This is load-bearing because the absorption term in Eq. (33) scales as a³ χ_I T^6 whereas the scattering term scales as a⁶ χ_R² T^9. For a ≈ 100 nm and T ≈ 300 K, the absorption term can dominate for extremely small, currently unconstrained values of χ_I. Consequently, the headline ratio γ_B/γ_E ≈ 9.14×10⁻¹³ is conditional on χ_I = 0 and does not provide a bound for the NV-centred nanodiamonds that motivate the QGEM application. The paper should either supply an experimental upper bound or clearly qualify the central claim.
[Eq. (82) vs. Eqs. (33), (D4)-(D5)] The single-particle decoherence ratio γ_B/γ_E should follow from Eq. (33) and Eq. (D5) as (a⁶c/(9π³)) / (8a⁶c/(9π)) = 1/(8π²). Equation (82) instead has 1/(16π²), which is the ratio obtained in Eq. (62) for the two-dipole decoherence factor. The manuscript does not explain this factor-of-2 discrepancy between the single-particle and two-dipole comparisons, and the quoted numerical value 9.14×10⁻¹³ for the single-particle case is therefore not internally consistent.

minor comments (5)

[Eq. (21)] The β factor appears in the numerator, whereas comparison with Eq. (23) shows it should be in the denominator.
[Eq. (33)] The first term contains a spurious 'h'; the correct coefficient is a⁶c/(9π³), with no additional Planck constant, as follows from dividing Eq. (32) by 2ℏ².
[Eqs. (33) and (60)] Eq. (33) uses the Bose factor n²+n (giving Γ(9)ζ(8) and Γ(6)ζ(5)), while Eq. (60) uses n (giving Γ(9)ζ(9) and Γ(6)ζ(6)). The difference should be explained explicitly, since both are presented as decoherence rates.
[Discussion, p.19] The sentence contrasting Ref. [32] and Ref. [31] on occupation-number regimes is unclear and should be rewritten for the reader to see which limit applies to Eq. (33).
[Throughout] Typos and unclear wording: 'electromagentic', 'writen', 'could be written has', 'we could get', etc. There are also missing spaces and inconsistent use of h vs ℏ.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation is self-contained from standard results; no circularity found.

full rationale

The paper's central quantities (momentum diffusion, decoherence rate, and drag force) are obtained by a direct FDT/quantum-field calculation: quantized fields, Bose–Einstein occupation numbers, the standard optical-theorem/Rayleigh-scattering relation for the imaginary part of the magnetic polarizability, Clausius–Mossotti bulk polarizability, and the previously established collisional-decoherence identification γ = Λ(Δx)². Each step is either derived in the paper or imported from independent external references ([48,49] for the scattering relation, [50] for the absorption split, [31,19,36] for the decoherence-link). The only unconstrained parameter, χ_I, is explicitly declared unmeasured in the Discussion: "the imaginary part of the magnetic nanodiamond has not been measured in a levitated setup. Hence, we are unable to put any limit on decoherence due to solely the magnetic properties." That is a data/parameter limitation, not a circular reduction: the final formulas are not fitted to the decoherence or drag outputs, and the headline ratio is explicitly computed for the χ_I ≈ 0 case. The self-citation to Ref. [32] is used to correct an error in that prior paper, so it is not load-bearing, and Ref. [31] provides a genuinely independent external basis for the method. No equation reduces to its inputs by construction and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on standard FDT, Mie scattering, and the collisional-decoherence dictionary. No new particles or forces are introduced. The only free inputs are the material susceptibility components and the geometric shape factor, plus the constancy of α in frequency. The main burden is that the unmeasured χ_I enters the absorption terms that the final formulas depend on.

free parameters (4)

χ_R (real magnetic susceptibility) = -2.2×10⁻⁵ for pure nanodiamond
Empirical material input used in Eqs. (32), (33), (60), (79); not derived in the paper.
χ_I (imaginary magnetic susceptibility) = ≈0 for pure nanodiamond; unknown for NV-doped
Controls the absorption contributions in Eqs. (33), (60), (79); explicitly stated as unmeasured in a levitating setup.
β (shape factor) = 1/2 for a sphere
Geometric parameter from Mie theory (Eq. 20); treated as known but effectively a free shape input.
α(ω) assumed constant = constant over thermal bandwidth
Used to evaluate the frequency integrals in Eqs. (32), (33), (60), (79); a modeling approximation, not justified for broad thermal spectra.

axioms (5)

domain assumption Fluctuation-dissipation theorem and thermal photon occupation numbers n(ω) = 1/(e^{ℏω/kT}−1)
Standard statistical physics; the paper uses it to replace field expectation values with thermal averages (Eq. 14).
standard math Optical theorem relation α_I ∝ |α|² for the scattering contribution (Eq. 20)
Standard consequence of Mie theory for Rayleigh scattering; imported from Refs. [48,49].
domain assumption Long-wavelength limit (superposition size Δx << photon wavelength)
Required for the point-dipole expansion and for the Taylor expansion in Eq. (55); stated in the abstract and used throughout.
domain assumption Force law F = ∇(m·B) + (1/c²)m × ∂tE (Eq. 1)
The starting point for the momentum diffusion; taken from the standard electrodynamics text [45] and assumed valid for the point magnetic dipole.
domain assumption Decoherence rate γ = Λ(Δx)² with 2Λ = (1/ℏ²)⟨Δp²⟩/Δt
The collisional decoherence relation imported from Refs. [31,36]; central to converting momentum diffusion into decoherence.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 20263 in / 20948 out tokens · 152383 ms · 2026-08-02T21:01:18.833942+00:00 · methodology

0 comments

read the original abstract

In this paper, we will provide a complete derivation of the decoherence rate for a magnetic nanoparticle in quantum superposition in the presence of the fluctuating electromagnetic field in a thermal background by using the fluctuation-dissipation theorem in the long-wavelength limit. The long-wavelength limit assumes that the superposition size is much smaller than the wavelength of the electromagentic filed fluctuations. We will extend this computation to two diamagnetic nanoparticles kept in quantum superposition adjacent to each other. We will also show how the drag force on a single nanoparticle arises from external electromagnetic-field fluctuations, and compare our results with those for the nanoparticle's dielectric properties.

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

By substituting Eq

(C3) Wherea r 1 is the Mie coefficient that is associated to magnetic dipoles contribution to the scattering (see [49] page 571), which has a form given by: ar 1 = i 6π µ0k3α(ω)β,(C4) whereβis a dimensionless form factor, andβ= 1/2 for a nanosphere, andα(ω) =α R(ω) + iαI(ω). By substituting Eq. (C4) to Eqs. (C2) and (C3), we can write σsca = µ2 0 6π ω4 c4...
[2]

M. D. Simon and A. K. Geim, Journal of Applied Physics87, 6200 (2000), ISSN 0021-8979, 1089-7550, URLhttps://pubs.aip.org/jap/article/87/9/6200/290322/ Diamagnetic-levitation-Flying-frogs-and-floating

2000
[3]

C5 and C6 αI(ω) = µ0 6π ω3 c3 |α(ω)|2β.(C7) Where it has the exact form in eq

If the scattering is elastic so there will be no energy absorption by the magnetic dipole, from Eqs. C5 and C6 αI(ω) = µ0 6π ω3 c3 |α(ω)|2β.(C7) Where it has the exact form in eq. 20. In case there is an absorption, we must consider the absorption cross sectionσ abs in Eq. C1. From [48–50], we could infer the absorption cross section for a magnetic dipole...
[4]

Simon, L

M. Simon, L. Heflinger, T. Ca, and A. Geim, American Journal of Physics69(2001). 24

2001
[5]

X. Chen, S. K. Ammu, K. Masania, P. G. Steeneken, and F. Alijani, Advanced Science9, 2203619 (2022)

2022
[6]

Hofer et al., Phys

J. Hofer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 043603 (2023), 2211.06289

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[7]

Nakashima, Phys

R. Nakashima, Phys. Lett. A384, 126592 (2020)

2020
[8]

R. J. Marshman, A. Mazumdar, R. Folman, and S. Bose, Physical Review Research4, 023087 (2022), ISSN 2643-1564

2022
[9]

R. J. Marshman, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, P. F. Barker, S. Hoekstra, and S. Bose, New J. Phys.22, 083012 (2020), 1807.10830

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020
[10]

J. S. Pedernales, G. W. Morley, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 023602 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.023602

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.023602 2020
[12]

Schilling, The physics of diamagnetic levitation (2021), arXiv:2101.02160 [physics.ed-ph], 2101.02160, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02160

A. Schilling, The physics of diamagnetic levitation (2021), arXiv:2101.02160 [physics.ed-ph], 2101.02160, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02160

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[13]

S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroˇ s, M. Paternostro, A. Geraci, P. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240401 (2017), 1707.06050. [11]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fv-0k13s_k(2016), accessed 11/08/25

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[14]

Marletto and V

C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240402 (2017), 1707.06036

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017
[15]

Schut, J

M. Schut, J. Tilly, R. J. Marshman, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. A105, 032411 (2022), 2110.14695

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[16]

S. G. Elahi, M. Schut, A. Dana, A. Grinin, S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, and A. Geraci, Diamagnetic micro-chip traps for levitated nanoparticle entanglement experiments (2024), arXiv:2411.02325, 2411.02325, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02325

arXiv 2024
[17]

Machluf, Y

S. Machluf, Y. Japha, and R. Folman, Nature communications4, 2424 (2013)

2013
[18]

O. Amit, Y. Margalit, O. Dobkowski, Z. Zhou, Y. Japha, M. Zimmermann, M. A. Efremov, F. A. Narducci, E. M. Rasel, W. P. Schleich, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 083601 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.083601

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.083601 2019
[19]

Margalit, O

Y. Margalit, O. Dobkowski, Z. Zhou, O. Amit, Y. Japha, S. Moukouri, D. Rohrlich, A. Mazumdar, S. Bose, C. Henkel, et al., Science Advances7, eabg2879 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abg2879, URLhttps://www.science. 25 org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.abg2879

doi:10.1126/sciadv.abg2879 2021
[20]

Romero-Isart, Physical Review A84, 052121 (2011), ISSN 1050-2947, 1094-1622, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.052121

O. Romero-Isart, Physical Review A84, 052121 (2011), ISSN 1050-2947, 1094-1622, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.052121

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.84.052121 2011
[21]

Romero-Isart, A

O. Romero-Isart, A. C. Pflanzer, F. Blaser, R. Kaltenbaek, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer, and J. I. Cirac, Physical review letters107, 020405 (2011)

2011
[22]

Schlosshauer, Physics Reports831, 1 (2019), ISSN 03701573, URLhttp://arxiv.org/ abs/1911.06282

M. Schlosshauer, Physics Reports831, 1 (2019), ISSN 03701573, URLhttp://arxiv.org/ abs/1911.06282

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019
[23]

Schut, P

M. Schut, P. Andriolo, M. Toroˇ s, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Physical Review A111, 042211 (2025), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.111.042211

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.111.042211 2025
[24]

T. W. van de Kamp, R. J. Marshman, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. A102, 062807 (2020), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.062807

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.102.062807 2020
[25]

Schut, A

M. Schut, A. Grinin, A. Dana, S. Bose, A. Geraci, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043170 (2023), 2307.07536

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023
[26]

Rijavec, M

S. Rijavec, M. Carlesso, A. Bassi, V. Vedral, and C. Marletto, New J. Phys.23, 043040 (2021), 2012.06230

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[27]

Fragolino, M

P. Fragolino, M. Schut, M. Toroˇ s, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. A109, 033301 (2024), 2307.07001

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[28]

Schut, H

M. Schut, H. Bosma, M. Wu, M. Toroˇ s, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. A110, 022412 (2024), 2312.05452

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024
[29]

S. N. Moorthy, A. Geraci, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. A112, 022416 (2025), 2504.13252

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[30]

S. N. Moorthy and A. Mazumdar (2025), 2509.02670

arXiv 2025
[31]

Toroˇ s, T

M. Toroˇ s, T. W. van de Kamp, R. J. Marshman, M. S. Kim, A. Mazumdar, and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023178 (2021), 2007.15029

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021
[32]

M. Wu, M. Toroˇ s, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. D111, 064004 (2025), URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.064004

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.064004 2025
[33]

Sinha and P

K. Sinha and P. W. Milonni, J. Phys. B55, 204002 (2022), 2204.11113

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022
[34]

Zhang, M

R. Zhang, M. Schut, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Scripta100, 105104 (2025), 2501.07632

arXiv 2025
[35]

S. M. Rytov, Theory of Electric Fluctuations and Thermal Radiation (Air Force Cambridge Research Center, 1959)

1959
[36]

Y. Zheng, Review of fluctuational electrodynamics and its applications to radiative momentum, energy and entropy transport 26 (2014), arXiv:1410.5741, URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5741

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014
[37]

Brevik, B

I. Brevik, B. Shapiro, and M. Silveirinha, International Journal of Modern Physics A37, 2241012 (2022), ISSN 0217-751X, 1793-656X

2022
[38]

Schlosshauer, Decoherence: the Quantum-to-Classical Transition (Springer, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007), the Frontiers Collection

M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence: the Quantum-to-Classical Transition (Springer, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007), the Frontiers Collection

2007
[39]

Hornberger and J

K. Hornberger and J. E. Sipe, Phys. Rev. A68, 012105 (2003), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.68.012105

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.68.012105 2003
[40]

A. D. Fokker, Annalen der Physik348, 810 (1914)

1914
[41]

Berg-Sorenson, Y

K. Berg-Sorenson, Y. Castin, E. Bonderup, and K. Molmer, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics25, 4195 (1992), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0953-4075/25/20/016

1992
[42]

V. I. Balykin and A. I. Sidorov, Soviet Journal of Quantum Electronics16, 1487 (1986), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1070/QE1986v016n11ABEH008326

work page doi:10.1070/qe1986v016n11abeh008326 1986
[43]

Dalibard and C

J. Dalibard and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 18, 1661 (1985), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0022-3700/18/8/019

work page doi:10.1088/0022-3700/18/8/019 1985
[44]

G. S. Agarwal and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A47, 5158 (1993), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.47.5158

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.47.5158 1993
[45]

Albert and H

E. Albert and H. Ludwig, Ann. Physik33, 1105 (1910)

1910
[46]

Albert and H

E. Albert and H. Ludwig, Ann. Physik33, 1096 (1910)

1910
[47]

Zangwill, Modern Electrodynamics (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

A. Zangwill, Modern Electrodynamics (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

2012
[48]

can be written as σsca = 6π k2 |ar 1|2,(C2) and the extinction cross section is [48, 49]: σext = 6π k2 Re(ar
[49]

E. R. Eisenach, J. F. Barry, M. F. O’Keeffe, J. M. Schloss, M. H. Steinecker, D. R. Englund, and D. A. Braje, Nature communications12, 1357 (2021), ISSN 2041-1723, URLhttps: //europepmc.org/articles/PMC7921108

2021
[50]

Campbell, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society15, 117 (1909)

N. Campbell, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society15, 117 (1909)

1909
[51]

J. L. Neuringer, Journal of Applied Physics37, 4082 (1966)

1966
[52]

J. A. Stratton, Electromagnetic theory, vol. 33 (John Wiley & Sons, 2007)

2007
[53]

H. C. van de Hulst, Light Scattering by Small Particles (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1957)

1957
[54]

C. F. Bohren and D. R. Huffman, Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles (Wi- ley, New York, 1983)

1983
[55]

Milonni, Introduction to Quantum Optics and quantum fluctuations (OXFORD UNIV PRESS US, 2023)

P. Milonni, Introduction to Quantum Optics and quantum fluctuations (OXFORD UNIV PRESS US, 2023). 27

2023
[56]

B. A. Richards, N. Ristoff, J. Smits, A. J. Perez, I. Fescenko, M. D. Aiello, F. Hubert, Y. Silani, N. Mosavian, M. S. Ziabari, et al., ACS Nano19, 10048 (2025), ISSN 1936-0851, 1936-086X

2025
[57]

A. P. Yelisseyev, V. P. Afanasiev, and V. N. Ikorsky, Doklady Earth Sciences425, 330 (2009), ISSN 1531-8354, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1134/S1028334X09020354

work page doi:10.1134/s1028334x09020354 2009
[58]

N. A. Poklonski, A. A. Khomich, I. A. Svito, S. A. Vyrko, O. N. Poklonskaya, A. I. Kovalev, M. V. Kozlova, R. A. Khmelnitskii, and A. V. Khomich, Applied Sciences13, 6221 (2023), ISSN 2076-3417, number: 10 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, URL https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/10/6221

2023
[59]

Afshar, A

A. Afshar, A. Proppe, N. Lupu-Gladstein, L. Childress, A. Z. Goldberg, and K. Heshami, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11720 (2025), submitted 29 Sep 2025, URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2510.11720

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
[60]

Xiang, S

Q. Xiang, S. G. Elahi, A. Geraci, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar (2026), 2601.06608

arXiv 2026
[61]

P. W. Milonni, An introduction to quantum optics and quantum fluctuations (Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2019)

2019
[62]

E. A. Milne, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society23, 465 (1926). 28

1926

[1] [1]

By substituting Eq

(C3) Wherea r 1 is the Mie coefficient that is associated to magnetic dipoles contribution to the scattering (see [49] page 571), which has a form given by: ar 1 = i 6π µ0k3α(ω)β,(C4) whereβis a dimensionless form factor, andβ= 1/2 for a nanosphere, andα(ω) =α R(ω) + iαI(ω). By substituting Eq. (C4) to Eqs. (C2) and (C3), we can write σsca = µ2 0 6π ω4 c4...

[2] [2]

M. D. Simon and A. K. Geim, Journal of Applied Physics87, 6200 (2000), ISSN 0021-8979, 1089-7550, URLhttps://pubs.aip.org/jap/article/87/9/6200/290322/ Diamagnetic-levitation-Flying-frogs-and-floating

2000

[3] [3]

C5 and C6 αI(ω) = µ0 6π ω3 c3 |α(ω)|2β.(C7) Where it has the exact form in eq

If the scattering is elastic so there will be no energy absorption by the magnetic dipole, from Eqs. C5 and C6 αI(ω) = µ0 6π ω3 c3 |α(ω)|2β.(C7) Where it has the exact form in eq. 20. In case there is an absorption, we must consider the absorption cross sectionσ abs in Eq. C1. From [48–50], we could infer the absorption cross section for a magnetic dipole...

[4] [4]

Simon, L

M. Simon, L. Heflinger, T. Ca, and A. Geim, American Journal of Physics69(2001). 24

2001

[5] [5]

X. Chen, S. K. Ammu, K. Masania, P. G. Steeneken, and F. Alijani, Advanced Science9, 2203619 (2022)

2022

[6] [6]

Hofer et al., Phys

J. Hofer et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 043603 (2023), 2211.06289

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[7] [7]

Nakashima, Phys

R. Nakashima, Phys. Lett. A384, 126592 (2020)

2020

[8] [8]

R. J. Marshman, A. Mazumdar, R. Folman, and S. Bose, Physical Review Research4, 023087 (2022), ISSN 2643-1564

2022

[9] [9]

R. J. Marshman, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, P. F. Barker, S. Hoekstra, and S. Bose, New J. Phys.22, 083012 (2020), 1807.10830

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

[10] [10]

J. S. Pedernales, G. W. Morley, and M. B. Plenio, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 023602 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.023602

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.023602 2020

[11] [12]

Schilling, The physics of diamagnetic levitation (2021), arXiv:2101.02160 [physics.ed-ph], 2101.02160, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02160

A. Schilling, The physics of diamagnetic levitation (2021), arXiv:2101.02160 [physics.ed-ph], 2101.02160, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2101.02160

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

[12] [13]

S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroˇ s, M. Paternostro, A. Geraci, P. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240401 (2017), 1707.06050. [11]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fv-0k13s_k(2016), accessed 11/08/25

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

[13] [14]

Marletto and V

C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240402 (2017), 1707.06036

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

[14] [15]

Schut, J

M. Schut, J. Tilly, R. J. Marshman, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. A105, 032411 (2022), 2110.14695

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

[15] [16]

S. G. Elahi, M. Schut, A. Dana, A. Grinin, S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, and A. Geraci, Diamagnetic micro-chip traps for levitated nanoparticle entanglement experiments (2024), arXiv:2411.02325, 2411.02325, URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2411.02325

arXiv 2024

[16] [17]

Machluf, Y

S. Machluf, Y. Japha, and R. Folman, Nature communications4, 2424 (2013)

2013

[17] [18]

O. Amit, Y. Margalit, O. Dobkowski, Z. Zhou, Y. Japha, M. Zimmermann, M. A. Efremov, F. A. Narducci, E. M. Rasel, W. P. Schleich, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 083601 (2019), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.083601

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.123.083601 2019

[18] [19]

Margalit, O

Y. Margalit, O. Dobkowski, Z. Zhou, O. Amit, Y. Japha, S. Moukouri, D. Rohrlich, A. Mazumdar, S. Bose, C. Henkel, et al., Science Advances7, eabg2879 (2021), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.abg2879, URLhttps://www.science. 25 org/doi/abs/10.1126/sciadv.abg2879

doi:10.1126/sciadv.abg2879 2021

[19] [20]

Romero-Isart, Physical Review A84, 052121 (2011), ISSN 1050-2947, 1094-1622, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.052121

O. Romero-Isart, Physical Review A84, 052121 (2011), ISSN 1050-2947, 1094-1622, URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.84.052121

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.84.052121 2011

[20] [21]

Romero-Isart, A

O. Romero-Isart, A. C. Pflanzer, F. Blaser, R. Kaltenbaek, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer, and J. I. Cirac, Physical review letters107, 020405 (2011)

2011

[21] [22]

Schlosshauer, Physics Reports831, 1 (2019), ISSN 03701573, URLhttp://arxiv.org/ abs/1911.06282

M. Schlosshauer, Physics Reports831, 1 (2019), ISSN 03701573, URLhttp://arxiv.org/ abs/1911.06282

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

[22] [23]

Schut, P

M. Schut, P. Andriolo, M. Toroˇ s, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Physical Review A111, 042211 (2025), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.111.042211

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.111.042211 2025

[23] [24]

T. W. van de Kamp, R. J. Marshman, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. A102, 062807 (2020), URLhttps://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.062807

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.102.062807 2020

[24] [25]

Schut, A

M. Schut, A. Grinin, A. Dana, S. Bose, A. Geraci, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 043170 (2023), 2307.07536

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

[25] [26]

Rijavec, M

S. Rijavec, M. Carlesso, A. Bassi, V. Vedral, and C. Marletto, New J. Phys.23, 043040 (2021), 2012.06230

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

[26] [27]

Fragolino, M

P. Fragolino, M. Schut, M. Toroˇ s, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. A109, 033301 (2024), 2307.07001

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[27] [28]

Schut, H

M. Schut, H. Bosma, M. Wu, M. Toroˇ s, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. A110, 022412 (2024), 2312.05452

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

[28] [29]

S. N. Moorthy, A. Geraci, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. A112, 022416 (2025), 2504.13252

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[29] [30]

S. N. Moorthy and A. Mazumdar (2025), 2509.02670

arXiv 2025

[30] [31]

Toroˇ s, T

M. Toroˇ s, T. W. van de Kamp, R. J. Marshman, M. S. Kim, A. Mazumdar, and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. Res.3, 023178 (2021), 2007.15029

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

[31] [32]

M. Wu, M. Toroˇ s, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. D111, 064004 (2025), URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.064004

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.064004 2025

[32] [33]

Sinha and P

K. Sinha and P. W. Milonni, J. Phys. B55, 204002 (2022), 2204.11113

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

[33] [34]

Zhang, M

R. Zhang, M. Schut, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Scripta100, 105104 (2025), 2501.07632

arXiv 2025

[34] [35]

S. M. Rytov, Theory of Electric Fluctuations and Thermal Radiation (Air Force Cambridge Research Center, 1959)

1959

[35] [36]

Y. Zheng, Review of fluctuational electrodynamics and its applications to radiative momentum, energy and entropy transport 26 (2014), arXiv:1410.5741, URLhttp://arxiv.org/abs/1410.5741

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

[36] [37]

Brevik, B

I. Brevik, B. Shapiro, and M. Silveirinha, International Journal of Modern Physics A37, 2241012 (2022), ISSN 0217-751X, 1793-656X

2022

[37] [38]

Schlosshauer, Decoherence: the Quantum-to-Classical Transition (Springer, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007), the Frontiers Collection

M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence: the Quantum-to-Classical Transition (Springer, Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 2007), the Frontiers Collection

2007

[38] [39]

Hornberger and J

K. Hornberger and J. E. Sipe, Phys. Rev. A68, 012105 (2003), URLhttps://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.68.012105

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.68.012105 2003

[39] [40]

A. D. Fokker, Annalen der Physik348, 810 (1914)

1914

[40] [41]

Berg-Sorenson, Y

K. Berg-Sorenson, Y. Castin, E. Bonderup, and K. Molmer, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics25, 4195 (1992), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 0953-4075/25/20/016

1992

[41] [42]

V. I. Balykin and A. I. Sidorov, Soviet Journal of Quantum Electronics16, 1487 (1986), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1070/QE1986v016n11ABEH008326

work page doi:10.1070/qe1986v016n11abeh008326 1986

[42] [43]

Dalibard and C

J. Dalibard and C. Cohen-Tannoudji, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics 18, 1661 (1985), URLhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0022-3700/18/8/019

work page doi:10.1088/0022-3700/18/8/019 1985

[43] [44]

G. S. Agarwal and K. Mølmer, Phys. Rev. A47, 5158 (1993), URLhttps://link.aps.org/ doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.47.5158

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.47.5158 1993

[44] [45]

Albert and H

E. Albert and H. Ludwig, Ann. Physik33, 1105 (1910)

1910

[45] [46]

Albert and H

E. Albert and H. Ludwig, Ann. Physik33, 1096 (1910)

1910

[46] [47]

Zangwill, Modern Electrodynamics (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

A. Zangwill, Modern Electrodynamics (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

2012

[47] [48]

can be written as σsca = 6π k2 |ar 1|2,(C2) and the extinction cross section is [48, 49]: σext = 6π k2 Re(ar

[48] [49]

E. R. Eisenach, J. F. Barry, M. F. O’Keeffe, J. M. Schloss, M. H. Steinecker, D. R. Englund, and D. A. Braje, Nature communications12, 1357 (2021), ISSN 2041-1723, URLhttps: //europepmc.org/articles/PMC7921108

2021

[49] [50]

Campbell, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society15, 117 (1909)

N. Campbell, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society15, 117 (1909)

1909

[50] [51]

J. L. Neuringer, Journal of Applied Physics37, 4082 (1966)

1966

[51] [52]

J. A. Stratton, Electromagnetic theory, vol. 33 (John Wiley & Sons, 2007)

2007

[52] [53]

H. C. van de Hulst, Light Scattering by Small Particles (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1957)

1957

[53] [54]

C. F. Bohren and D. R. Huffman, Absorption and Scattering of Light by Small Particles (Wi- ley, New York, 1983)

1983

[54] [55]

Milonni, Introduction to Quantum Optics and quantum fluctuations (OXFORD UNIV PRESS US, 2023)

P. Milonni, Introduction to Quantum Optics and quantum fluctuations (OXFORD UNIV PRESS US, 2023). 27

2023

[55] [56]

B. A. Richards, N. Ristoff, J. Smits, A. J. Perez, I. Fescenko, M. D. Aiello, F. Hubert, Y. Silani, N. Mosavian, M. S. Ziabari, et al., ACS Nano19, 10048 (2025), ISSN 1936-0851, 1936-086X

2025

[56] [57]

A. P. Yelisseyev, V. P. Afanasiev, and V. N. Ikorsky, Doklady Earth Sciences425, 330 (2009), ISSN 1531-8354, URLhttps://doi.org/10.1134/S1028334X09020354

work page doi:10.1134/s1028334x09020354 2009

[57] [58]

N. A. Poklonski, A. A. Khomich, I. A. Svito, S. A. Vyrko, O. N. Poklonskaya, A. I. Kovalev, M. V. Kozlova, R. A. Khmelnitskii, and A. V. Khomich, Applied Sciences13, 6221 (2023), ISSN 2076-3417, number: 10 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, URL https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/13/10/6221

2023

[58] [59]

Afshar, A

A. Afshar, A. Proppe, N. Lupu-Gladstein, L. Childress, A. Z. Goldberg, and K. Heshami, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.11720 (2025), submitted 29 Sep 2025, URLhttps://arxiv.org/ abs/2510.11720

Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

[59] [60]

Xiang, S

Q. Xiang, S. G. Elahi, A. Geraci, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar (2026), 2601.06608

arXiv 2026

[60] [61]

P. W. Milonni, An introduction to quantum optics and quantum fluctuations (Oxford Uni- versity Press, 2019)

2019

[61] [62]

E. A. Milne, Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society23, 465 (1926). 28

1926