Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 79 references

Quantum dynamics of a levitated ferromagnetic gyroscope

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A levitated ferromagnetic gyroscope's rotational dynamics are governed by discrete quantum states, with spacing set by ħ divided by its moment of inertia, and precession persists even when mechanical rotation exceeds intrinsic spin.

desk verdict A novel and plausible quantum framework for levitated ferromagnetic gyroscopes that is currently undermined by a missing spherical-measure term in the Hamiltonian; fixable, but the numbers will move. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.16592 v1 pith:FCM7BXEN submitted 2026-07-18 quant-ph physics.atom-ph

Derek F. Jackson Kimball This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.atom-ph
keywords levitatedferromagneticgyroscopespin-rotorquantumdynamicsJ_zquantizationprecession-librationladdersrfladderspectroscopyprecessionscalemacrospinmodelEinstein–deHaasfrequency
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 builds a quantum model of a freely floating ferromagnetic gyroscope, treating the collective electron spin as a classical vector locked to the crystal lattice while quantizing only the mechanical rotor angles. Its central claim is that the conserved projection of total angular momentum along the magnetic field, J_z = S_z + L_z, takes discrete values mħ, producing a ladder of precessional states |m⟩ and a harmonic-oscillator ladder of librational states |n⟩ governed by the quantum precession scale Ω_Q = ħ/I. The model further claims that gyroscopic precession survives in high-field regimes where the mechanical angular momentum of precession exceeds the intrinsic spin (L ≳ S), contrary to the low-field limit of earlier proposals. If correct, this turns a levitated ferromagnet into a controllable mesoscopic quantum system: rf fields can drive Δm = ±1 and Δn = ±1 transitions, enabling ladder spectroscopy, tilt-angle control, and sideband coupling between precession and libration. The practical payoff is a route to ultrasensitive torque and magnetic-field sensing with quantum-limited, rf-addressable states.

What carries the argument

The central object is the conserved quantized angular-momentum projection J_z = S_z + L_z = mħ, enforced by the Wess-Zumino term, a geometric-phase term in the Lagrangian that ties spin precession to mechanical rotation. The macrospin S is treated as a classical vector locked to the crystalline anisotropy axis, so only the mechanical rotor degrees of freedom (θ, φ) are quantized via the Hamiltonian H = p_θ²/2I + (p_φ − S cosθ)²/(2I sin²θ) + SΩ cosθ. In the small-libration limit this Hamiltonian maps to coupled harmonic-oscillator ladders whose frequencies are ω_I = S/I in the spin-dominated case and mΩ_Q ≈ Ω in the rotation-dominated case, with Ω_Q = ħ/I setting the discreteness scale. The s

What would settle it

Measure the vertical magnetization of a single levitated ferromagnetic needle as the applied field is swept through the predicted zero-crossing fields B_m = mħ²/(g μ_B I) at temperatures near 10 mK; if the magnetization is continuous rather than step-like, or if precession at Ω ≫ ω_I does not follow the predicted frequency-versus-field curve with the conserved-J_z tilt evolution, the central claim is falsified. A second decisive test is to drive rf transitions near the predicted branch point and look for the divergence in dω/dθ; absence of enhanced precession-libration coupling would contradic

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The core discovery is that the rotational dynamics of a levitated ferromagnetic gyroscope are those of a quantized spin-rotor: the Hamiltonian for the orientation angles, including the Wess-Zumino geometric-phase term that couples spin to precession, conserves J_z, and in the small-libration limit the energy spectrum separates into a discrete J_z ladder |m⟩ with spacing set by Ω_Q = ħ/I and a librational oscillator ladder |n⟩ with frequency set by the Einstein–de Haas frequency ω_I = S/I or its high-field analogue. From this spectrum the paper derives that precessional dynamics persist for Larmor frequencies far above the previously identified threshold Ω ≪ ω_I, all the way to L ≳ S, with qu

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the macrospin S behaves as a classical vector rigidly locked to the crystal axis, so that spin fluctuations are infinitely fast and only the rotor angles are dynamical; if this locking weakens at high fields, or if the moment of inertia about the symmetry axis is not negligible, the quantized rotor Hamiltonian and high-field precession predictions do not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • LFG precession-based magnetometry is not restricted to fields satisfying Ω ≪ ω_I; the same rigid-macrospin dynamics predict stable precession for Ω ≫ ω_I, including regimes where the rotational angular momentum of precession exceeds the intrinsic spin.
  • A circularly polarized rf field drives Δm = ±1 transitions, changing the tilt angle and shifting the precession frequency; a linearly polarized rf field drives Δn = ±1 librational transitions, enabling ladder spectroscopy at any orientation angle.
  • The vertical magnetization of an equatorially precessing LFG crosses zero only at discrete field values B_m = mħ²/(g μ_B I), a SQUID-like signature of J_z quantization.
  • At branch-point magnetic resonances, where the fast and slow precession branches merge, dω/dθ diverges in the no-nutation model, giving extreme sensitivity of the precession frequency to tilt-angle fluctuations and strong precession-libration coupling.
  • State preparation near the librational ground state appears feasible by cooling at high field, where the librational energy gap grows as √B, then adiabatically ramping the field down; in a cryogenic vacuum the gas-collision rethermalization time can exceed years.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct experimental test: place a roughly 10 nm iron needle in a cryostat and monitor vertical magnetization versus field; if zero-crossings do not appear at the predicted B_m = mħ²/(g μ_B I) values, the J_z quantization picture is wrong even if classical precession is observed.
  • The rigid-macrospin assumption breaks down as Ω approaches the magnon gap (gigahertz scale in iron), where spin fluctuations can no longer be slaved to the lattice; the model's high-field predictions should cross over to magnomechanical hybrids, testable by looking for avoided crossings between precession and magnon modes.
  • Squeezing J_z (number-squeezed states) is predicted to increase the resonance Q-factor at the cost of azimuthal localization and readout contrast; this is a testable metrological tradeoff the paper leaves open.
  • The same ladder structure suggests a path to macroscopic superposition states: preparing an LFG in a superposition of m-levels and using rf sideband coupling would produce coherent superpositions of rotor orientations, connecting to proposals for spin-rotor entanglement.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 develops a classical and quantum model for a levitated ferromagnetic gyroscope (LFG), treating the macrospin as a classical vector locked to the crystalline axis and adding a Wess–Zumino term to the rotor Lagrangian. The conserved projection J_z = S_z + L_z is quantized, leading to discrete precessional states |m⟩ and librational oscillator states |n⟩ with the quantum scale Ω_Q = ℏ/I. The paper claims that precession persists into high-field regimes L ≳ S, derives rf selection rules (Δm = ±1, Δn = ±1) for ladder spectroscopy, discusses branch-point resonances and pole avoidance, and gives numerical estimates for nanoscale LFGs, including a proposed cooling strategy.

Significance. If the quantization step is correct, the paper opens a promising framework for quantum control and metrology with levitated ferromagnets: it makes concrete, falsifiable predictions for quantized field steps, rf resonances, and zero-point shifts, and connects to ongoing experiments. The classical part is clearly derived, and the appendices provide useful supporting calculations. The main weakness is that the central quantization is not performed with the correct geometry on the sphere, and the issue is of exactly the order of the claimed quantum effects.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (19); Sec. IV B, Eqs. (60)–(66)] The quantization step replaces p_θ with −iℏ∂_θ, but the configuration space is the unit sphere with measure sinθ dθ dφ. The correct self-adjoint kinetic operator is the Laplace–Beltrami operator, which contains an additional cotθ ∂_θ term (equivalently p_θ = −iℏ(∂_θ + ½cotθ) plus a −ℏ²(¼cot²θ − ½csc²θ) potential). This is not a small correction. Near the equator it contributes O(ℏΩ_Q) energy shifts; near the south pole the term behaves as (1/ϑ)∂_ϑ and changes the effective radial problem from the 1D oscillator used in Eqs. (60)–(66) to a 2D radial oscillator, altering the zero-point energy and the level spacing in Eq. (62). Because the energy ladders (33), (62), (82) and the rf conditions (76), (106) all depend on these levels, the quantum predictions are not derived from a well-defined Hamiltonian as written. The authors should re-derive the spectra with the covariant Laplacian, or just
  2. [Sec. IV A, Eqs. (33), (37)–(38), (46)–(48), (C9)] The derivation of the m-level spacing switches between ∂E/∂m at fixed Ω and ∂E/∂m at fixed mΩ_Q = Ω without stating the constraint. From Eq. (C9), at fixed B, ∂E/∂m ≈ ℏΩ, while Eq. (46) uses mℏ²/I. These agree only after imposing the equilibrium condition mΩ_Q ≈ Ω. This distinction is load-bearing for the dephasing rate κ = (1/ℏ)∂²E/∂m² in Eq. (48), which is not the second derivative of Eq. (33). The text should identify which quantity is held fixed and derive κ from a single expression for E_{m,n}; otherwise the coherence time (49) and Q-factor (53) are not reproducible.
  3. [Sec. VI, Table I; Eq. (24)] The rigid-macrospin assumption S = ⟨S⟩ = S n̂ is not accompanied by a quantitative validity bound for the high-field regime. The paper's high-field claim requires Ω ≳ ω_I; for the 10 nm LFG in Table I, ω_I/(2π) = 20 MHz, so this regime starts around 20–100 MHz, only one to two orders of magnitude below the stated ferromagnetic-resonance/magnon-gap scale of ~GHz. Since the model's predictions in that regime are central, the authors should provide a numerical bound (e.g., compare Ω to the magnon gap and Landau–Lifshitz–Gilbert relaxation rate for the parameters in Table I) and state where the model breaks down.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV] The statement that m is 'integer or half-integer' is not consistent with the rotor wavefunction e^{imφ} on a 2π-periodic φ used in Eq. (91). In the locked-macrospin model, S_z is a c-number, so J_z = mℏ should have integer m. If half-integer m is intended, the spin part must be explicitly quantized; please clarify.
  2. [Appendix B] In the paragraph after Eq. (B7), 'we can employ Eq. (26) in Eq. (B8)' should refer to Eq. (B7), since Eq. (B8) is the simplified result being derived.
  3. [Footnote 6 and Sec. VII] The breakdown of the rigid-macrospin model is repeatedly placed at the ~GHz scale without specifying a material or geometry. Please give a concrete estimate for the ferromagnetic-resonance/magnon-gap frequency for the parameters in Table I and use the same value in Sec. VII.
  4. [Eq. (82) and footnote 7] The derivation of ΔE_m in Eq. (82) and footnote 7 is not transparent for negative F, where |F+ℏ| − |F| changes sign. Please state the branch and the sign convention explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the quantized precession and libration predictions follow from the stated Lagrangian/Hamiltonian via canonical quantization, with no fitted parameters or load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained. The paper starts from a classical Lagrangian (Eq. 2), derives canonical momenta and the Hamiltonian (Eq. 10), and quantizes by promoting p_theta and p_phi to operators (Eqs. 17-19). The discrete J_z ladder |m> follows from 2pi-periodicity in phi, a mathematical property of the quantization, not from an input assumption. The predicted scales — omega_I = S/I, Omega_Q = hbar/I, omega_l = sqrt(omega_I Omega + omega_I^2/4), the equatorial condition m Omega_Q ≈ Omega, and the high-field persistence of precession — are explicit solutions of the resulting equations (Eqs. 26-27, 33-35, 60-66, C8-C16). No parameter is fitted to data and no prediction is a renamed input. The rigid-macrospin assumption S = <S> = S n-hat (Eq. 24) is a stated modeling premise, justified by independent spin-lattice and LLG-timescale arguments (Refs. 12, 30-31, 42-43) and acknowledged as having a limited validity range (footnote 6; Sec. VII), so the extensive self-citations [1-5] are contextual motivation rather than load-bearing evidence. The Laplace-Beltrami/operator-ordering issue raised in review concerns whether d^2/dtheta^2 is the correct kinetic operator on the sphere; that is a technical correctness or validity question, not circularity, because the quoted predictions follow from the Hamiltonian as written. Under the rule that circularity requires a demonstrated reduction of a result to its own input, no such step exists here.

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

The central claim rests on treating the macrospin as a classical vector locked to the lattice, plus standard commutation relations and the Wess-Zumino form of the spin-precession Lagrangian. No free parameters are fitted; material constants (N, I) are inputs from prior literature, and Ω_Q is a derived scale, not an invented entity.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Macrospin S is a classical vector locked to the lattice: S ≡ ⟨S⟩ = S n̂ (Eq. 24)
    Underpins the entire quantum rotor model; relies on rapid spin-lattice exchange and LLG damping. If locking fails, spin operators must be quantized and the model changes.
  • standard math Canonical quantization of angle coordinates: [θ̂, p̂_θ] = iℏ and [φ̂, p̂_φ] = iℏ (Eqs. 21–22)
    Standard quantum mechanics for angular coordinates.
  • domain assumption Wess-Zumino term L_WZ = S cosθ φ̇ gives the spin geometric phase (Eq. 6, Appendix A)
    Form of the Berry phase for a spin precessing about B; standard but a modeling choice.
  • domain assumption Moment of inertia about the symmetry axis I_n ≈ 0 and free-floating with no other interactions (Sec. I)
    Simplifies the rotor to a two-angle problem; real levitation and trapping potentials are deferred to future work.
  • standard math Small-libration expansions and harmonic-oscillator approximations near equator and pole (Sec. IV, Appendices B–D)
    Standard perturbative expansions; valid for small amplitudes but not globally.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum dynamics of a levitated ferromagnetic gyroscope." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FCM7BXEN

@misc{pith2026260716592,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum dynamics of a levitated ferromagnetic gyroscope},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FCM7BXEN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.16592}
}
abstract

We develop a quantum model for the rotational dynamics of a freely floating levitated ferromagnetic gyroscope (LFG), emphasizing the interplay between intrinsic spin $\boldsymbol{S}$, mechanical angular momentum $\boldsymbol{L}$, and magnetic torque. The conserved total angular momentum projection along the $z$-directed magnetic field $\boldsymbol{B}$, $J_z=S_z+L_z$, is quantized, leading in the small-libration-amplitude limit to discrete precessional states $|m\rangle$ (eigenstates of $J_z$ with eigenvalues $J_z = m\hbar$) and librational harmonic oscillator states $|n\rangle$ ($n=0,1,2,\ldots$). The discreteness of the energies and dynamical variables is governed by the quantum precession scale $\Omega_Q=\hbar/I$, where $I$ is the moment of inertia of the LFG. We find that the phenomenon of LFG precession persists into high-field regimes where the magnitude of the rotational angular momentum associated with precession exceeds the total intrinsic spin. We analyze the complementary quantum limits of localized semiclassical LFG orientation wave packets and exact $J_z$-eigenstates $|m\rangle$, clarifying the relation between classical precession signals and the underlying quantized spin-rotor dynamics. We further show that radio-frequency fields can drive $\Delta m = \pm 1$ and $\Delta n = \pm 1$ transitions, enabling ladder spectroscopy, tilt-angle control, and sideband-like coupling between precession and libration. The coupled dynamics also exhibit branch-point magnetic resonances where precession and librational motion become strongly coupled. These results establish a framework for using LFGs not only as ultrasensitive torque and magnetic-field sensors, but also as controllable mesoscopic quantum systems. The techniques developed here may be applied to searches for exotic, beyond-the-standard model spin-dependent interactions, ultralight dark matter, and spin-gravity couplings.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.16592 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of the geometry used in our model [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The LFG precession frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The precession frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: shows the precession frequency ω and tilt an￾gle θ as a function of the Larmor frequency Ω for the Jz = 0 case. For B = 0, Ω = 0 and θ = π/2; this π 2 3 π 4 π 0 500 1000 1500 θ (rad) ω / 2 π (Hz) FIG. 3. The LFG precession frequency ω as a function of the tilt angle θ …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Precession of an LFG with relatively small amplitude oscillations of the tilt angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Energy level diagram showing the quantized states [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Upper plots (a), (b), and (c) show the LFG dynamical behavior as a function of Larmor frequency Ω, proportional [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The derivative of the precession frequency with re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Upper plot: LFG precession frequency [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Dependence of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

79 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Spin passes through pole We begin with the special caseJ z ≈ −S, which is physically relevant, for example, if the LFG is initially prepared at rest withSpointing along− ˆzand then sub- jected to a magnetic fieldB=B ˆz. From Eq. (23), we have ⟨ω⟩= ⟨Jz⟩ −S⟨cosθ⟩ I⟨sin 2 θ⟩ ≈ −ωI 1 +⟨cosθ⟩ ⟨sin2 θ⟩ .(56) We can rewrite the above expression in terms of the s...

  2. [2]

    exact-pole

    General LFG polar dynamics In the more general near-pole case whereF=J z +S̸= 0, the pole itself is no longer the minimum of the effec- tive potential. Instead, angular-momentum conservation produces a centrifugal barrier that tilts the LFG away fromθ=π. Expanding in the small angleϑ≡θ−π, we find Jz −Scosθ≈(J z +S)− S 2 ϑ2 =F− S 2 ϑ2 ,(67) which can be su...

  3. [3]

    (33), shown schematically in Fig

    Quantized energy levels near the equator (θ≈π/2) For the equatorial case of⟨θ⟩=θ m ≈π/2, the energies of the quantum states of the LFG are given by Eq. (33), shown schematically in Fig. 6. The energy difference be- tween adjacentm-levels holdingnconstant is ∆Em ≡E m+1,n −E m,n ≈ℏΩ.(76) For the case whereJ z ≪S(m≪N/2), the energy difference between adjacen...

  4. [4]

    (69) and (71) is Ueff |ϑ=ϑ0 =|F| r ΩωI + ω2 I 4 − ωI 2 F−SΩ,(79) and so the LFG energy, including the librational oscilla- tion, is E=|F| r ΩωI + ω2 I 4 − ωI 2 F−SΩ +ℏω ϑ n+ 1 2

    Quantized energy levels near the south pole (θ≈π) Near the south pole, the value of the potential at the minimumϑ=ϑ 0 based on Eqs. (69) and (71) is Ueff |ϑ=ϑ0 =|F| r ΩωI + ω2 I 4 − ωI 2 F−SΩ,(79) and so the LFG energy, including the librational oscilla- tion, is E=|F| r ΩωI + ω2 I 4 − ωI 2 F−SΩ +ℏω ϑ n+ 1 2 . (80) ... ... ... FIG. 6. Energy level diagram...

  5. [5]

    Perturbing Hamiltonian from an rf-drive If we add a relatively weak time-dependent rf field Brf(t) to the existing static fieldB, we introduce an ad- 7 Equation (82) is derived from ∆Em ≈(|F+ℏ| − |F|) s ΩωI + ω2 I 4 − ℏωI 2 . 12 ditional term into the Hamiltonian (10): V rf(t) = gµB ℏ S·B rf(t) = gµB ℏ S ˆn·B rf(t).(85) Near the equator (θ≈π/2), the LFG o...

  6. [6]

    An intuitive way to observe precession in the equatorial case, as originally envisioned in Ref

    Observables The dynamics of the LFG can be observed by mea- suring the field from the magnetizationµ=−gµ BS/ℏ. An intuitive way to observe precession in the equatorial case, as originally envisioned in Ref. [1], is by measur- ing the time-dependent transverse magnetization with a pickup loop along, e.g.,x, to determine ⟨Sx(t)⟩ ≈Scosϕ(t).(97) This is the a...

  7. [7]

    IV C 3 will change the values of the observables de- scribed above in Sec

    Spectroscopy of theJ z ladder at the equator In the case of precession-dominated dynamics near the equator, driving transitions betweenm-sublevels us- ing a circularly polarized rf fieldB rf(t) as described in Sec. IV C 3 will change the values of the observables de- scribed above in Sec. IV C 4. The LFG precession fre- quency is calculated to higher orde...

  8. [8]

    branch point

    Spectroscopy of polar librational levels Likewise, as discussed in Sec. IV C 3, a linearly polar- izedB rf(t) can be used to driven→n±1 transitions between librational levels. Near the south pole (θ≈π), the resonant condition is achieved when ωrf =ω ϑ = 2ωℓ = 2 r ΩωI + ω2 I 4 ,(106) and an increase in the amplitude of the librational oscilla- tions can be...

Show all 79 references
  1. [9]

    D. F. Jackson Kimball, A. O. Sushkov, and D. Budker, Precessing ferromagnetic needle magnetometer, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 190801 (2016)

    2016

  2. [10]

    Fadeev, C

    P. Fadeev, C. Timberlake, T. Wang, A. Vinante, Y. B. Band, D. Budker, A. O. Sushkov, H. Ulbricht, and D. F. Jackson Kimball, Ferromagnetic gyroscopes for tests of fundamental physics, Quantum Sci. Technol.6, 024006 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    Fadeev, T

    P. Fadeev, T. Wang, Y. Band, D. Budker, P. W. Graham, A. O. Sushkov, and D. F. Jackson Kimball, Gravity probe spin: Prospects for measuring general-relativistic preces- sion of intrinsic spin using a ferromagnetic gyroscope, Phys. Rev. D103, 044056 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Vinante, C

    A. Vinante, C. Timberlake, D. Budker, D. F. Jack- son Kimball, A. O. Sushkov, and H. Ulbricht, Surpassing the Energy Resolution Limit with ferromagnetic torque sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 070801 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    Kalia, D

    S. Kalia, D. Budker, D. F. J. Kimball, W. Ji, Z. Liu, A. O. Sushkov, C. Timberlake, H. Ulbricht, A. Vinante, and T. Wang, Ultralight dark matter detection with levitated ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. D110, 115029 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Budker, D

    D. Budker, D. Kimball, D. F. Kimball, and D. P. De- Mille,Atomic physics: an exploration through problems and solutions(Oxford University Press, USA, 2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    Ahrens and A

    F. Ahrens and A. Vinante, Observation of gyroscopic cou- pling in a nonspinning levitated ferromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 146703 (2026)

    2026

  8. [16]

    Palacios Alvarez, P

    S. Palacios Alvarez, P. Gomez, S. Coop, R. Zamora- Zamora, C. Mazzinghi, and M. W. Mitchell, Single- domain Bose condensate magnetometer achieves energy resolution per bandwidth belowℏ, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 119, e2115339119 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Ahrens, W

    F. Ahrens, W. Ji, D. Budker, C. Timberlake, H. Ulbricht, and A. Vinante, Levitated ferromagnetic magnetometer with energy resolution well belowℏ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 110801 (2025)

    2025

  10. [18]

    M. W. Mitchell and S. P. Alvarez, Colloquium: Quantum limits to the energy resolution of magnetic field sensors, Rev. Mod. Phys.92, 021001 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    D. F. Jackson Kimball, D. Budker, T. E. Chupp, A. A. Geraci, S. Kolkowitz, J. T. Singh, and A. O. Sushkov, Probing fundamental physics with spin-based quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. A108, 010101 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    X. Ni, Z. Zou, R. Lecamwasam, A. Vinante, D. Budker, P. K. Lam, T. Wang, and J. Gong, Microscopic theory of a precessing ferromagnet for ultrasensitive magnetom- etry, Phys. Rev. Research7, 043120 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    B. A. Stickler, K. Hornberger, and M. Kim, Quantum rotations of nanoparticles, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 589 (2021)

    2021

  14. [22]

    Vinante, C

    A. Vinante, C. Timberlake, and H. Ulbricht, Levitated micromagnets in superconducting traps: A new platform for tabletop fundamental physics experiments, Entropy 24, 1642 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    T. Wang, S. Lourette, S. R. O’Kelley, M. Kayci, Y. Band, 25 D. F. Jackson Kimball, A. O. Sushkov, and D. Budker, Dynamics of a ferromagnetic particle levitated over a su- perconductor, Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 044041 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Vinante, P

    A. Vinante, P. Falferi, G. Gasbarri, A. Setter, C. Tim- berlake, and H. Ulbricht, Ultralow mechanical damp- ing with meissner-levitated ferromagnetic microparticles, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 064027 (2020)

    2020

  17. [25]

    Gieseler, A

    J. Gieseler, A. Kabcenell, E. Rosenfeld, J. Schaefer, A. Safira, M. J. Schuetz, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, C. C. Rusconi, O. Romero-Isart, and M. D. Lukin, Single-spin magnetomechanics with levitated micromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 163604 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    Huillery, T

    P. Huillery, T. Delord, L. Nicolas, M. Van Den Bossche, M. Perdriat, and G. Hetet, Spin mechanics with levitat- ing ferromagnetic particles, Phys. Rev. B101, 134415 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Perdriat, C

    M. Perdriat, C. Pellet-Mary, P. Huillery, L. Rondin, and G. H´ etet, Spin-mechanics with nitrogen-vacancy centers and trapped particles, Micromachines12, 651 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Perdriat, C

    M. Perdriat, C. C. Rusconi, T. Delord, P. Huillery, C. Pellet-Mary, A. Durand, B. A. Stickler, and G. H´ etet, Rotational locking of charged microparticles in quadrupole ion traps, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 253602 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    J. F. Barry, R. A. Irion, M. H. Steinecker, D. K. Freeman, J. J. Kedziora, R. G. Wilcox, and D. A. Braje, Ferri- magnetic oscillator magnetometer, Phys. Rev. Appl.19, 044044 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    M. Fuwa, R. Sakagami, and T. Tamegai, Ferromagnetic levitation and harmonic trapping of a milligram-scale yttrium iron garnet sphere, Phys. Rev. A108, 063511 (2023)

    2023

  23. [31]

    Janse, E

    M. Janse, E. van der Bent, M. Laurman, R. Smit, and B. Hensen, Characterization of a levitated sub-milligram ferromagnetic cube in a planar alternating-current mag- netic paul trap, Appl. Phys. Lett.125(2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    W. Ji, C. Xu, G. Qu, and D. Budker, Levitated sensor for magnetometry in ambient environment, arXiv:2504.21524 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Y. Band, Y. Avishai, and A. Shnirman, Dynamics of a magnetic needle magnetometer: Sensitivity to landau- lifshitz-gilbert damping, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 160801 (2018)

    2018

  26. [34]

    Belovs, R

    M. Belovs, R. Livanovics, and A. C¯ ebers, Gyromagnetic effects in dynamics of magnetic microparticles, J. Magn. Magn. Mater.614, 172735 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    X. Ni, Z. Zou, P. K. Lam, T. Wang, and J. Gong, Macroscopic spin ghz states with a levitated ferromag- net, arXiv:2606.03676 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Wachter, S

    V. Wachter, S. V. Kusminskiy, G. H´ etet, and B. A. Stick- ler, Gyroscopically stabilized quantum spin rotors, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 073604 (2026)

    2026

  29. [37]

    Chikazumi and C

    S. Chikazumi and C. D. Graham,Physics of ferromag- netism(Oxford University Press, 1997)

    1997

  30. [38]

    Frait and H

    Z. Frait and H. MacFaden, Ferromagnetic resonance in metals. Frequency dependence, Phys. Rev.139, 1173 (1965)

    1965

  31. [39]

    M. R. Diehl, J.-Y. Yu, J. R. Heath, G. A. Held, H. Doyle, S. Sun, and C. B. Murray, Crystalline, shape, and surface anisotropy in two crystal morphologies of superparamag- netic cobalt nanoparticles by ferromagnetic resonance, J. Phys. Chem. B105, 7913 (2001)

    2001

  32. [40]

    Seynaeve, G

    E. Seynaeve, G. Rens, A. Volodin, K. Temst, C. Van Hae- sendonck, and Y. Bruynseraede, Transition from a single- domain to a multidomain state in mesoscopic ferromag- netic co structures, J. Appl. Phys.89, 531 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    D. Loss, D. P. DiVincenzo, and G. Grinstein, Suppression of tunneling by interference in half-integer-spin particles, Phys. Rev. Lett.69, 3232 (1992)

    1992

  34. [42]

    M. V. Berry, Quantal phase factors accompanying adia- batic changes, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A. Math. Phys. Sci. 392, 45 (1984)

    1984

  35. [43]

    D. P. Arovas and A. Auerbach, Functional integral the- ories of low-dimensional quantum heisenberg models, Phys. Rev. B38, 316 (1988)

    1988

  36. [44]

    Einstein and W

    A. Einstein and W. J. de Haas, Experimenteller Nachweis der Ampereschen Molekularstr¨ ome, Verh. Dtsch. Phys. Ges.17, 152 (1915)

    1915

  37. [45]

    Einstein and W

    A. Einstein and W. J. de Haas, Experimental proof of the existence of Amp` ere’s molecular currents, Koninkli- jke Akademie van Wetenschappen te Amsterdam, Pro- ceedings18, 696 (1915)

    1915

  38. [46]

    Morin,Introduction to classical mechanics: with prob- lems and solutions(Cambridge University Press, 2008)

    D. Morin,Introduction to classical mechanics: with prob- lems and solutions(Cambridge University Press, 2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    J. Xiao, A. Zangwill, and M. D. Stiles, Macrospin mod- els of spin transfer dynamics, Phys. Rev. B72, 014446 (2005)

    2005

  40. [48]

    Landau, E

    L. Landau, E. Lifshitz,et al., On the theory of the dis- persion of magnetic permeability in ferromagnetic bodies, Phys. Z. Sowjetunion8, 101 (1935)

    1935

  41. [49]

    T. L. Gilbert, A phenomenological theory of damping in ferromagnetic materials, IEEE transactions on magnetics 40, 3443 (2004)

    2004

  42. [50]

    Kambersk` y, Spin-orbital Gilbert damping in common magnetic metals, Phys

    V. Kambersk` y, Spin-orbital Gilbert damping in common magnetic metals, Phys. Rev. B76, 134416 (2007)

    2007

  43. [51]

    J. H. Mentink, M. Katsnelson, and M. Lemeshko, Quan- tum many-body dynamics of the Einstein–de Haas effect, Phys. Rev. B99, 064428 (2019)

    2019

  44. [52]

    W. F. Brown Jr, Thermal fluctuations of a single-domain particle, Phys. Rev.130, 1677 (1963)

    1963

  45. [53]

    F. T. Arecchi, E. Courtens, R. Gilmore, and H. Thomas, Atomic coherent states in quantum optics, Phys. Rev. A 6, 2211 (1972)

    1972

  46. [54]

    Carruthers and M

    P. Carruthers and M. M. Nieto, Phase and angle variables in quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.40, 411 (1968)

    1968

  47. [55]

    Judge, On the uncertainty relation forL z andϕ, Phys

    D. Judge, On the uncertainty relation forL z andϕ, Phys. Lett.5(1963)

    1963

  48. [56]

    H. P. Robertson, The uncertainty principle, Phys. Rev. 34, 163 (1929)

    1929

  49. [57]

    Clarke and A

    J. Clarke and A. I. Braginski,The SQUID handbook: Ap- plications of SQUIDs and SQUID systems(John Wiley & Sons, 2006)

    2006

  50. [58]

    T. D. Claridge,High-resolution NMR techniques in or- ganic chemistry, Vol. 27 (Elsevier, 2016)

    2016

  51. [59]

    Keeler,Understanding NMR spectroscopy(John Wiley & Sons, 2010)

    J. Keeler,Understanding NMR spectroscopy(John Wiley & Sons, 2010)

    2010

  52. [60]

    E. L. Hahn, Spin echoes, Phys. Rev.80, 580 (1950)

    1950

  53. [61]

    C. P. Bean and J. D. Livingston, Superparamagnetism, J. Appl. Phys.30, S120 (1959)

    1959

  54. [62]

    Knobel, W

    M. Knobel, W. Nunes, L. Socolovsky, E. De Biasi, J. Var- gas, and J. Denardin, Superparamagnetism and other magnetic features in granular materials: a review on ideal and real systems, J. Nanosci. Nanotechnol.8, 2836 (2008)

    2008

  55. [63]

    N´ eel, Th´ eorie du tra ˆ ınage magn´ etique des ferro- magn´ etiques en grains fins avec application aux terres cuites, inAnnales de g´ eophysique, Vol

    L. N´ eel, Th´ eorie du tra ˆ ınage magn´ etique des ferro- magn´ etiques en grains fins avec application aux terres cuites, inAnnales de g´ eophysique, Vol. 5 (1949) p. 99

    1949

  56. [64]

    Wernsdorfer, E

    W. Wernsdorfer, E. B. Orozco, K. Hasselbach, A. Benoit, 26 B. Barbara, N. Demoncy, A. Loiseau, H. Pascard, and D. Mailly, Experimental evidence of the N´ eel-Brown model of magnetization reversal, Phys. Rev. Lett.78, 1791 (1997)

    1997

  57. [65]

    J. M. Coey,Magnetism and magnetic materials(Cam- bridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  58. [66]

    Jos´ e Mart ´ ınez-P´ erez and D

    M. Jos´ e Mart ´ ınez-P´ erez and D. Koelle, Nanosquids: Ba- sics & recent advances, Phys. Sci. Rev.2, 20175001 (2017)

    2017

  59. [67]

    Wernsdorfer, From micro-to nano-squids: applica- tions to nanomagnetism, Superconductor Science and Technology22, 064013 (2009)

    W. Wernsdorfer, From micro-to nano-squids: applica- tions to nanomagnetism, Superconductor Science and Technology22, 064013 (2009)

    2009

  60. [68]

    Schmelz, A

    M. Schmelz, A. Vettoliere, V. Zakosarenko, N. De Leo, M. Fretto, R. Stolz, and C. Granata, 3d nanosquid based on tunnel nano-junctions with an energy sensitivity of 1.3 h at 4.2 k, Appl. Phys. Lett.111(2017)

    2017

  61. [69]

    Weber, D

    T. Weber, D. Jetter, J. Ullmann, S. A. Koch, S. F. Pfander, K. Kress, A. Vervelaki, B. Gross, O. Kieler, U. Drechsler,et al., Advanced squid-on-lever scanning probe for high-sensitivity magnetic microscopy with sub- 100-nm spatial resolution, Phys. Rev. Appl.24, 054041 (2025)

    2025

  62. [70]

    Zhang, C.-L

    X. Zhang, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Cavity magnomechanics, Sci. Adv.2, e1501286 (2016)

    2016

  63. [71]

    C. A. Potts, E. Varga, V. A. Bittencourt, S. V. Kusmin- skiy, and J. P. Davis, Dynamical backaction magnome- chanics, Phys. Rev. X11, 031053 (2021)

    2021

  64. [72]

    A. Kani, B. Sarma, and J. Twamley, Intensive cavity- magnomechanical cooling of a levitated macromagnet, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 013602 (2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    Asjad, J

    M. Asjad, J. Li, S.-Y. Zhu, and J. You, Magnon squeezing enhanced ground-state cooling in cavity magnomechan- ics, Fundamental Research3, 3 (2023)

    2023

  66. [74]

    L. Chen, Y. Liu, L. Bin, S.-Y. Ye, and Z.-R. Zhong, Si- multaneous cooling of the internal and external degrees of freedom of a levitated micromagnet in a cavity magnome- chanical system, Phys. Rev. Research7, 033157 (2025)

    2025

  67. [75]

    Pobell,Matter and methods at low temperatures, Vol

    F. Pobell,Matter and methods at low temperatures, Vol. 2 (Springer, 2007)

    2007

  68. [76]

    D. Yang, X. Yang, C. Sun, and J. Zhang, Ultra- light dark matter detection with a ferromagnet lattice, arXiv:2602.17291 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Aharonov and D

    Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Significance of electromag- netic potentials in the quantum theory, Phys. Rev.115, 485 (1959)

    1959

  70. [78]

    I. J. R. Aitchison, Berry phases, magnetic monopoles, and Wess-Zumino terms: or how the skyrmion got its spin, Acta Phys. Pol. B18, 207 (1986)

    1986

  71. [79]

    J. W. Zwanziger, M. Koenig, and A. Pines, Berry’s phase, Annu. Rev. Phys. Chem.41, 601 (1990)

    1990

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.