Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 73 references

Mesoscopic mechanical superpositions by gluing individual quantum systems

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A single electron in a time-bin superposition can prepare a mesoscopic mechanical Schrödinger kitten in a levitated nanoparticle, avoiding the need for state expansion, dark potentials, or release-and-recapture.

desk verdict Clever protocol with a clean analytic core, but the single-electron capture step—which carries the whole superposition—is assumed rather than modeled; deserves refereeing if the author supplies a microscopic capture model. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.20195 v1 pith:S7OOLOLS submitted 2026-07-22 quant-ph

Thiago Guerreiro This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords Schrödingerkittenopticallylevitatednanoparticletime-binsuperpositionsingle-electronquantumofmotionWignernegativitymatter-waveinterferencedecoherence
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 proposes a protocol for putting an optically levitated nanoparticle of roughly 10^-18 kg into a quantum superposition of two motional states—a Schrödinger kitten—without first expanding its wavepacket in a nonlinear or dark potential. The trick is to let a single electron, prepared in a superposition of two arrival times, hit the particle and stick; an electric-field pulse then delivers opposite momentum kicks for the early versus late arrival, so the particle is left in a superposition of two coherent states. The paper works through the full decoherence budget—laser recoil heating, thermal radiation, trap noise, internal phonons, and electron dephasing—and predicts observable interference fringes with roughly 50% visibility within one oscillation period, detectable by real-time homodyne interferometry. If correct, this provides a comparatively simple route to mesoscopic matter-wave interference and a direct witness of non-classicality in a massive mechanical object.

What carries the argument

The mechanism is a time-bin electron: a single electron in a coherent superposition of two arrival times separated by δt. Its collision with the bead changes the bead's charge by -e (the electron is trapped), and the applied electric field is switched so that early arrival produces a momentum kick -δp and late arrival +δp. Since the electron's arrival time is in superposition, the bead receives a superposition of kicks; the controllable phase φ of the electron wavefunction is imprinted on the mechanical state. The analytical workhorse is the harmonic-oscillator master equation with a position-localization term, Eq. (5), whose solution yields the coefficients A, B, C in Eq. (4) and the visibi

What would settle it

Measure the interference visibility V as a function of the electron time-bin coherence η while also monitoring the particle's charge after each collision. The model predicts V ∝ η with a slope near 50% for δp = p0, Γ/ω = 0.2, and n̄ = 0.5. If the slope collapses while the charge change is still exactly one elementary charge—or if the fringes vanish when the particle's internal temperature is raised—the 'no which-path record' premise fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single electron, prepared in a time-bin superposition |te⟩+e^{iφ}|tℓ⟩ and allowed to collide with and be trapped by a levitated charged bead, together with a specifically switched electric field E(t), prepares the bead's center-of-mass state as |ψ0⟩ = N(e^{iδp x̂/ℏ}+e^{iφ}e^{-iδp x̂/ℏ})|0⟩. This is a non-Gaussian superposition of two momentum-displaced ground states—a mechanical Schrödinger kitten—whose two wavepackets separate and re-overlap in a harmonic period, yielding φ-dependent interference fringes in the position distribution at t=π/ω. The paper analyzes decoherence from laser recoil heating (the dominant term), black-body radiation, trap fluctuations, int

Load-bearing premise

The whole scheme hangs on a single electron colliding with the 50-nm bead and being trapped without imprinting its arrival time on any other degree of freedom; if that capture is not clean, the superposition in Eq. (3) degrades to a mixture.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A mechanical Schrödinger kitten can be produced without coherent state expansion, dark potentials, or release-and-recapture, removing the main sources of motional decoherence in current proposals.
  • The interference pattern is controlled by the electron's phase, so the test runs without direct actuation on the nanoparticle.
  • Predicted fringes are detectable with near-Heisenberg-limited homodyne interferometry of scattered trapping light; a resolution of 10x0 requires only about 27 nanoseconds of integration time.
  • Wigner negativity is generated and persists until ωt ≈ 5π/12 for Γ/ω = 0.2; a threefold lower decoherence rate keeps the Wigner function negative for the entire protocol.
  • The scheme scales to objects at least five times more massive than current matter-wave records using a single electron event.

Reading between the lines

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

  • An implicit testable consequence is that the mechanical fringe visibility should be a linear function of the electron's own interferometric visibility η; a tabletop electron interferometer with η ≈ 0.2 would already yield roughly 10% mechanical fringes, a mapping the paper does not explicitly frame as a standalone prediction.
  • The protocol effectively transfers a single-electron time-bin coherence to a massive mechanical mode; a natural extension is to use the same mechanism to entangle the mechanical mode with an electronic spin or with a second electron, enabling hybrid quantum networking at mesoscopic scales.
  • The clean single-electron capture step is the Achilles heel; if it can be made deterministic and monitored (e.g., by observing the discrete -e charge step), the same apparatus could be used to test collapse models at masses around 10^-18 kg, a regime the paper mentions only in passing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a protocol to prepare Schrödinger-kitten states of an optically levitated 50-nm SiO2 nanoparticle by having a coherent single-electron time-bin state collide with the particle. A time-dependent electric field converts the electron's early/late arrival time into opposite momentum kicks, yielding the approximate superposed state |ψ0⟩ = N(e^{iδp x̂/ℏ} + e^{iφ} e^{-iδp x̂/ℏ})|0⟩ (Eq. (3)). The paper solves the harmonic-oscillator master equation with position localization (Appendix C), obtains analytic position probabilities and visibilities, and reports that for δp = p0, Γ/ω = 0.2, n̄ = 0.5, η = 1 the interference visibility reaches about 50%, with Wigner negativity surviving for a fraction of the oscillation period. The protocol is claimed to avoid coherent state expansion, dark potentials, and release-and-recapture, and the fringes are to be read out by real-time homodyne position detection.

Significance. If the protocol works as claimed, it would be a genuinely new route to mesoscopic quantum superpositions at masses around 10^-18 kg, using single-electron time-bin states as the 'glue' and the Coulomb force to transfer coherence to the mechanical oscillator. The master-equation calculation is standard and competently executed: the analytical solution in Appendix C is explicit, the visibility formula is derived rather than fitted, and the experimental parameters are taken from the levitated-optomechanics literature. The proposed readout via near-Heisenberg-limited interferometry is plausible. However, the physical step that carries the entire proposal — that a single 7–17 eV electron is captured by the nanoparticle with no which-time-bin information leaking into internal degrees of freedom — is assumed rather than derived. Because the reported visibility is linearly proportional to the time-bin coherence parameter η (Fig. 6a), the headline numbers are conditional on an uncharacterized microscopic assumption.

major comments (3)
  1. [Protocol, step 1; Decoherence section (deformation estimate before Fig. 2)] The central assumption that the electron is trapped with probability one, changes the particle charge by exactly one elementary charge, and leaves no which-time-bin information is asserted in Protocol step 1. Eq. (3) and all subsequent visibility results require coherence between the early and late arrival events. The only microscopic support is the deformation estimate equating E_s = m_s ω_s² δR²/2 to the electron kinetic energy and taking m_s = m (the full 50-nm particle mass). This choice is not justified. A 10-eV electron has a de Broglie wavelength of about 0.4 nm and impacts a local region; the relevant effective mass for surface/local phonons is many orders of magnitude smaller than the full particle mass. Repeating the estimate with an impact-region effective mass of 10^3–10^5 atoms yields δR of order nm, comparable to the interatomic spacing, which means phonon emission (and pos
  2. [Appendix C, Eqs. (C27)–(C29); Fig. 3 caption] The time-bin dephasing parameter η is introduced phenomenologically in Appendix C: the electron environment states satisfy ⟨e0|e1⟩ = η. The main visibility figures (Figs. 2–4) set η = 1, and Fig. 6a shows V ≈ 52.8% × η. Thus the claimed 50% visibility is determined by an assumed perfect coherence, not by a calculated or measured value. The paper notes that an electron Mach–Zehnder visibility of 20% would reduce the nanoparticle visibility to about 10%, but no estimate is given for the actual η expected in the electron–particle capture process. Since this is the key physical step, the manuscript needs either a microscopic derivation of η or a clear experimental characterization protocol that would verify the required coherence before the mechanical interference can be attributed.
  3. [Protocol, step 2 and timing assumptions] The protocol assumes δt_s ≪ δt, with δt = 100 ns, and that the electric-field pulse is perfectly synchronized with the electron arrival times t_e and t_l. No analysis is given for timing jitter in the electron arrival or for switching-time effects. If the arrival time fluctuates by an amount comparable to δt, the momentum kick is no longer exactly ±δp, and if the early/late wavepackets overlap in time, the which-path information is partially encoded in the electron's time of arrival even before the surface interaction. The visibility expressions assume a clean two-time-bin state. A quantitative error budget for timing jitter and field-switching fidelity should be provided to support the claimed fringes.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] Typographical errors: 'approximatelly' twice in the Protocol section, 'Fro simplicity' in Appendix C, and inconsistent use of 'ei δpˆxℏ' formatting. These do not affect the physics but should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption labels the horizontal axis as 'P ∆x(φ, 6x0)' in panel b), which is unclear; presumably this is P_Δx(φ, x=6x0). Please clarify.
  3. [Reference [18]] Reference [18] is listed as 'Unknown Journal'; the full bibliographic information should be provided.
  4. [Appendix C, Eq. (C25)] The normalization factor N is written in the main text without η, while Appendix C uses N with η. Please define N consistently and state the normalization explicitly for the η ≠ 1 case.
  5. [Introduction and protocol] The term 'time-bin electron state' should be defined more carefully: unlike optical time-bin qubits, the early/late wavepackets here interact with a macroscopic body, and the role of the electron's spatial wavepacket width relative to the particle size is not discussed. A sentence clarifying the geometry would be helpful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the interference and Wigner-negativity results are computed outputs of a designed conditional-kick protocol, not fits or self-citations.

full rationale

The central state, Eq. (3), is not a derived prediction from an unrelated input; it is the intended conditional state produced by a designed electric field acting on a time-bin electron. The paper explicitly calls this the ideal preparation, and the subsequent interference probability P_Δx(φ,x), visibility, and Wigner negativity are obtained by solving the stated master equation with literature parameters (Γ/ω ≈ 0.2, nbar = 0.5, δp = p0, η=1). No parameter is fitted to the target fringe visibility or to the negativity curve; η is an independent coherence parameter whose linear effect on visibility is derived, not assumed as the answer. Self-citations [42], [50], and [59] are peripheral: they support an achievable field strength, a charge-readout herald, and a vector-beam trap option, and none of them supplies the master-equation solution or the coherence argument. The main physical weakness — that electron capture leaves no which-time information — is an asserted modeling assumption supported only by a rough phonon estimate (ms = m, δR ≈ a0); this is a correctness/falsifiability risk, not a circular step, because no equation in the paper reduces to its own input or renames a fitted quantity as a prediction.

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

The protocol rests on standard levitated-optomechanics modelling plus a central, unverified assumption about single-electron capture. The visibility numbers are conditional on chosen experimental parameters, none fitted to data.

free parameters (5)
  • Momentum kick δp = p0 in baseline (p0 = sqrt(mℏω/2))
    Baseline visibility ~50% and Wigner-negativity plots use δp = p0; for δp = 2p0 visibility drops to ~10%. This is a protocol setting, not fitted to data.
  • Initial thermal occupation n̄ = 0.5
    Quoted 50% visibility assumes n̄ ≈ 0.5–1; ground-state cooling to this level is cited from experiment.
  • Total decoherence rate Γ = Γ ≈ 0.2 ω ≈ 2π×20 kHz
    Main text assumes recoil heating dominates; the value comes from cited experiments. If Γ is threefold lower, negativity survives the full protocol.
  • Time-bin coherence η = η = 1 in main plots; η = 0.2 in one example
    Interference visibility scales approximately as V ≈ (50%)×η; perfect electron coherence is assumed for central numbers.
  • Measurement resolution Δx = Δx = 10 x0 ≈ 85 pm
    Required for the visibility plot; corresponding integration time is ~27 ns. At Δx ≈ x0 the visibility changes (Fig. 6b).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The nanoparticle's center-of-mass motion is a harmonic oscillator initially in a thermal state with occupation n̄, with longitudinal and transverse motions decoupled.
    Protocol step 0 and throughout; standard levitated-optomechanics modelling.
  • domain assumption A single electron can be prepared in a time-bin state (|te⟩ + e^{iφ}|tℓ⟩)/√2 with controllable phase φ and sufficient coherence.
    Protocol step 1, Eq. (1); supported by electron-interference references, but not by a demonstrated 100 ns electron time-bin source with phase control.
  • ad hoc to paper The electron colliding with the particle is trapped with no which-time-bin information left in internal degrees of freedom, and the particle charge changes by exactly one elementary charge.
    Protocol step 1; central uncontrolled assumption. Only a crude phonon-deformation estimate is given; no microscopic model of electron attachment or surface electronic excitations.
  • ad hoc to paper The electric-field switching time δt_s is negligible and the pulse is perfectly synchronized with electron arrival times t_e, t_ℓ.
    Protocol step 2 and Appendix A; no timing-jitter or synchronization-error analysis is provided.
  • domain assumption All relevant decoherence is captured by the localization master equation (5) with rate Γ, and gas collisions plus internal-phonon decoherence are negligible.
    Decoherence section; standard for levitated particles, but the internal-phonon estimate is a rough energy-equipartition argument.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Mesoscopic mechanical superpositions by gluing individual quantum systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S7OOLOLS

@misc{pith2026260720195,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Mesoscopic mechanical superpositions by gluing individual quantum systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S7OOLOLS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.20195}
}
read the original abstract

We propose a protocol for preparing mechanical Schr\"odinger kittens -- mesoscopic quantum superpositions of coherent motional states of an optically levitated nanoparticle -- by adhering single electron time-bin states to its surface. Over short protocol timescales, coherence of the mesoscopic superposition survives the dominant decoherence mechanisms afflicting levitated systems, and can be observed by varying the phase of the time-bin electrons. Interference fringes can be detected with real-time, near-Heisenberg limited interferometry of photons scattered from the particle. This approach eliminates the need for coherent state expansion, dark potentials, and particle release-and-recapture mechanisms, providing a new route to test quantum mechanics in unprecedented scales.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.20195 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: a) shows a plot of the interference visibility as a function of the electron coherence parameter η, and b) as a function of measurement resolution ∆x. Finally, we compute the Wigner function at the origin of phase space as a function of time for our initial state (C24)…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 6 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Preparethechargedlevitatedparticleintheground state of the harmonic trap

  2. [2]

    We set the electron’s energy such that once it collides with the particle’s surface it gets trapped, decreasing its total charge by one el- ementary unit

    Prepare a single electron in a time-bin state |ψe− ⟩= |te⟩+e iφ|tℓ⟩√ 2 (1) whereφis a controllable phase andt e, tℓ denote early and late arrival times of the electron at the trapping site. We set the electron’s energy such that once it collides with the particle’s surface it gets trapped, decreasing its total charge by one el- ementary unit

  3. [3]

    1, withδt s ≪δt≪ 2π ω ,Γ −1, whereδt s is the electric field ‘switching time’ andΓis the total decoherence rate of the system

    Applyatime-dependentelectricfieldattheparticle along the longitudinal direction, such as the one in Fig. 1, withδt s ≪δt≪ 2π ω ,Γ −1, whereδt s is the electric field ‘switching time’ andΓis the total decoherence rate of the system. The exact form of the profile depends on the initial chargeZ(see discussion below)

  4. [4]

    Then, measure the position of the particlexwith resolution given by∆xover an inte- gration timeτ meas ≪2π/ω

    Let the particle evolve in the harmonic potential untilt=π/ω. Then, measure the position of the particlexwith resolution given by∆xover an inte- gration timeτ meas ≪2π/ω. Repeat this step many times with a fixed value ofφto reconstruct the probabilityP ∆x(φ, x)of finding the particle in the interval x− ∆x 2 , x+ ∆x 2

  5. [5]

    As an example, consider an initially neutral particle, Z= 0, and the profile shown in Fig

    Repeat steps 0) - 3) varying the value of the relative phaseφ. As an example, consider an initially neutral particle, Z= 0, and the profile shown in Fig. 1. We assumeδtis so small that the particle’s harmonic motion and deco- herence are approximatelly frozen during the state prepa- ration, step 2). The applied electric field is such that if the electron ...

  6. [6]

    which-path

    and 3),|ψ 0⟩evolves to a superposition of Gaussians centered at distinct locations, reaching a maximum sep- aration ofδx= 2δp mω att=π/2ωand overlapping again att=π/ω. The result from steps 3) - 4) is an interference pattern in the particle’s CoM position probability as a function ofφ. At half a period of oscillation,t=π/ω, we have P∆x(φ, x) =N2 (A+Bcosφ+...

  7. [7]

    Ranfagni, K

    A. Ranfagni, K. Børkje, F. Marino, and F. Marin, Two- dimensional quantum motion of a levitated nanosphere, Physical Review Research4, 033051 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    Similarly, trap position and frequency fluctuations yield a decoherence rate ofΓfluct ≲1kHz, also signifi- cantly smaller thanω(see Appendix B for details)

    The decoherence rate for thermal scattering, emission and absorption of photons can be estimated to beΓbb ≲1Hz, much smaller than ω. Similarly, trap position and frequency fluctuations yield a decoherence rate ofΓfluct ≲1kHz, also signifi- cantly smaller thanω(see Appendix B for details). The main source of decoherence is then recoil heating from the trap...

    2024

Show all 73 references
  1. [9]

    Chu, Nobel lecture: The manipulation of neutral par- ticles, Reviews of Modern Physics70, 685 (1998)

    S. Chu, Nobel lecture: The manipulation of neutral par- ticles, Reviews of Modern Physics70, 685 (1998)

    1998

  2. [10]

    S. Bose, I. Fuentes, A. A. Geraci, S. M. Khan, S. Qvar- fort, M. Rademacher, M. Rashid, M. Toroš, H. Ulbricht, and C. C. Wanjura, Massive quantum systems as inter- facesofquantummechanicsandgravity,ReviewsofMod- ern Physics97, 015003 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    Delić, M

    U. Delić, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V. Vuletić, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, Cooling of a levitated nanoparticle to the motional quantum ground state, Sci- ence367, 892 (2020)

    2020

  4. [12]

    Pontin, H

    A. Pontin, H. Fu, M. Toroš, T. S. Monteiro, and P. F. Barker, Simultaneous cavity cooling of all six degrees of freedom of a levitated nanoparticle, Nature Physics19, 1003 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Magrini, P

    L. Magrini, P. Rosenzweig, C. Bach, A. Deutschmann- Olek, S. G. Hofer, S. Hong, N. Kiesel, A. Kugi, and M. Aspelmeyer, Real-time optimal quantum control of mechanical motion at room temperature, Nature595, 373 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Tebbenjohanns, M

    F. Tebbenjohanns, M. L. Mattana, M. Rossi, M. Frim- mer, and L. Novotny, Quantum control of a nanoparticle optically levitated in cryogenic free space, Nature595, 378 (2021)

    2021

  7. [15]

    Skrabulis, M

    M. Skrabulis, M. C. Sosa, N. C. Zambon, A. Militaru, M. Rossi, M. Frimmer, and L. Novotny, Nanomechanical sensorresolvingimpulsiveforcesbelowitszero-pointfluc- tuations, Physical Review Letters136, 233604 (2026)

    2026

  8. [16]

    Piotrowski, D

    J. Piotrowski, D. Windey, J. Vijayan, C. Gonzalez- Ballestero, A.delosRíosSommer, N.Meyer, R.Quidant, O. Romero-Isart, R. Reimann, and L. Novotny, Simulta- neous ground-state cooling of two mechanical modes of a levitated nanoparticle, Nature Physics19, 1009 (2023)

    2023

  9. [17]

    Kamba, R

    M. Kamba, R. Shimizu, and K. Aikawa, Nanoscale feed- back control of six degrees of freedom of a near-sphere, Nature Communications14, 7943 (2023)

    2023

  10. [18]

    Rossi, A

    M. Rossi, A. Militaru, N. Carlon Zambon, A. Riera- Campeny, O. Romero-Isart, M. Frimmer, and L. Novotny, Quantum delocalization of a levitated nanoparticle, Physical review letters135, 083601 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Kamba, N

    M. Kamba, N. Hara, and K. Aikawa, Quantum squeez- ing of a levitated nanomechanical oscillator, Science389, 1225 (2025). 6

    2025

  12. [20]

    Muffato, T

    R. Muffato, T. Georgescu, M. Carlesso, M. Paternos- tro, and H. Ulbricht, Coherent expansion of the motional state of a massive nanoparticle beyond its linear dimen- sions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2408.09596 (2024)

    2024

  13. [21]

    Steiner, Y

    D. Steiner, Y. Y. Fein, G. Meier, S. Lindner, P. Juschitz, M. A. Ciampini, M. Aspelmeyer, and N. Kiesel, Free ex- pansion of a charged nanoparticle via electrostatic com- pensation, Applied Physics Letters127(2025)

    2025

  14. [22]

    G. F. Tomassi, D. Veldhuizen, B. Melo, D. Candoli, A. Riera-Campeny, O. Romero-Isart, N. Meyer, and R. Quidant, Accelerated state expansion of a nanopar- ticle in a dark inverted potential, Physical Review Re- search8, L012026 (2026)

    2026

  15. [23]

    Bonvin, L

    E. Bonvin, L. Devaud, M. Rossi, A. Militaru, L. Da- nia, D. S. Bykov, O. Romero-Isart, T. E. Northup, L. Novotny, and M. Frimmer, State expansion of a levi- tated nanoparticle in a dark harmonic potential, Physical Review Letters132, 253602 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Otabe, M

    S. Otabe, M. Kamba, Y. Kojima, and K. Aikawa, Time- of-flight force sensing below the quantum zero-point fluc- tuation, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.09854 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Tseng, C

    Y.-H. Tseng, C. A. Hardy, T. Penny, C. Lowe, J. Baeza- Rubio, D. Carney, and D. C. Moore, Optomechani- cal detection of individual gas collisions, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.18371 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    J. F. Clauser, De broglie-wave interference of small rocks and live viruses, Unknown Journal (1997)

    1997

  19. [27]

    Romero-Isart, A

    O. Romero-Isart, A. C. Pflanzer, F. Blaser, R. Kaltenbaek, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer, and J. I. Cirac, Large quantum superpositions and interference of massive nanometer-sized objects, Physical review letters 107, 020405 (2011)

    2011

  20. [28]

    Weiss, M

    T. Weiss, M. Roda-Llordes, E. Torrontegui, M. As- pelmeyer, and O. Romero-Isart, Large quantum delocal- ization of a levitated nanoparticle using optimal control: Applications for force sensing and entangling via weak forces, Physical Review Letters127, 023601 (2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    Neumeier, M

    L. Neumeier, M. A. Ciampini, O. Romero-Isart, M. As- pelmeyer, and N. Kiesel, Fast quantum interference of a nanoparticle via optical potential control, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences121, e2306953121 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Bonvin, L

    E. Bonvin, L. Devaud, M. Rossi, A. Militaru, L. Dania, D. S. Bykov, M. Teller, T. E. Northup, L. Novotny, and M. Frimmer, Hybrid paul-optical trap with large opti- cal access for levitated optomechanics, Physical Review Research6, 043129 (2024)

    2024

  23. [31]

    Gupta, B

    S. Gupta, B. Faulend, D. S. Bykov, T. E. Northup, and C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, Quantum theory of elec- trically levitated nanoparticle-ion systems: Motional dynamics and sympathetic cooling, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.21495 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    M. L. Mattana, N. C. Zambon, M. Rossi, E. Bonvin, L. Devaud, M. Frimmer, and L. Novotny, Trap-to-trap free falls with an optically levitated nanoparticle, Physi- cal Review A113, 023510 (2026)

    2026

  25. [33]

    C. M. Caves and G. J. Milburn, Quantum-mechanical model for continuous position measurements, Physical Review A36, 5543 (1987)

    1987

  26. [34]

    Dania, D

    L. Dania, D. S. Bykov, F. Goschin, M. Teller, A. Kassid, and T. E. Northup, Ultrahigh quality factor of a levitated nanomechanical oscillator, Physical Review Letters132, 133602 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    J. Wang, T. Penny, J. Recoaro, B. Siegel, Y.-H. Tseng, and D. C. Moore, Mechanical detection of nuclear decays, Physical Review Letters133, 023602 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    cat paradox

    J. D. Trimmer, The present situation in quantum me- chanics: A translation of schrödinger’s" cat paradox" pa- per, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society , 323 (1980)

    1980

  29. [37]

    Toroš, S

    M. Toroš, S. Bose, and P. Barker, Creating atom- nanoparticle quantum superpositions, Physical Review Research3, 033218 (2021)

    2021

  30. [38]

    D. S. Bykov, L. Dania, F. Goschin, and T. E. Northup, Nanoparticle stored with an atomic ion in a linear paul trap, Physical Review Letters135, 213602 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    R. Bach, D. Pope, S.-H. Liou, and H. Batelaan, Con- trolled double-slit electron diffraction, New Journal of Physics15, 033018 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    Z.-q. Yin, T. Li, X. Zhang, and L. Duan, Large quantum superpositions of a levitated nanodiamond through spin- optomechanical coupling, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics88, 033614 (2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    G. P. Conangla, A. W. Schell, R. A. Rica, and R. Quidant, Motion control and optical interrogation of a levitating single nitrogen vacancy in vacuum, Nano let- ters18, 3956 (2018)

    2018

  34. [42]

    N. Levi, O. Feldman, Y. Rosenzweig, D. Groswasser, A. Elgarat, M. Gal-Katizri, and R. Folman, Quantum control of nitrogen-vacancy spin in diamonds: Towards matter-wave interferometry with massive objects, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.15504 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  35. [43]

    D. C. Moore, A. D. Rider, and G. Gratta, Search for mil- licharged particles using optically levitated microspheres, Phys. Rev. Lett.113, 251801 (2014)

    2014

  36. [44]

    Frimmer, K

    M. Frimmer, K. Luszcz, S. Ferreiro, V. Jain, E. Hebe- streit, and L. Novotny, Controlling the net charge on a nanoparticle optically levitated in vacuum, Physical Re- view A95, 061801 (2017)

    2017

  37. [45]

    Stoellner, I

    A. Stoellner, I. C. Lenton, A. G. Volosniev, J. Millen, R. Shibuya, H. Ishii, D. Rak, Z. Alpichshev, G. David, R. Signorell,et al., Using optical tweezers to simultane- ously trap, charge, and measure the charge of a micropar- ticle in air, Physical Review Letters135, 218202 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Tonomura, J

    A. Tonomura, J. Endo, T. Matsuda, T. Kawasaki, and H. Ezawa, Demonstration of single-electron buildup of an interference pattern, Am. J. Phys57, 117 (1989)

    1989

  39. [47]

    Matthiesen, Q

    C. Matthiesen, Q. Yu, J. Guo, A. M. Alonso, and H. Häffner, Trapping electrons in a room-temperature microwave paul trap, Physical Review X11, 011019 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Ourjoumtsev, R

    A. Ourjoumtsev, R. Tualle-Brouri, J. Laurat, and P. Grangier, Generating optical schrodinger kittens for quantum information processing, Science312, 83 (2006)

    2006

  41. [49]

    Haslinger, Electron-enabled nanoparticle diffraction, Physical Review Letters135, 173601 (2025)

    S.Nimmrichter, D.Rätzel, I.C.Bicket, M.S.Seifner,and P. Haslinger, Electron-enabled nanoparticle diffraction, Physical Review Letters135, 173601 (2025)

    2025

  42. [50]

    Kremer, I

    O. Kremer, I. Califrer, D. Tandeitnik, J. P. von der Weid, G. Temporão, and T. Guerreiro, All-electrical cooling of an optically levitated nanoparticle, Physical Review Ap- plied22, 024010 (2024)

    2024

  43. [51]

    D. L. Freimund and H. Batelaan, Bragg scattering of free electrons using the kapitza-dirac effect, Physical review letters89, 283602 (2002)

    2002

  44. [52]

    K. Lin, S. Eckart, H. Liang, A. Hartung, S. Jacob, Q. Ji, L.P.H.Schmidt, M.S.Schöffler, T.Jahnke, M.Kunitski, et al., Ultrafast kapitza-dirac effect, Science383, 1467 (2024). 7

    2024

  45. [53]

    Hence, deformations due to the impact of the electron are on the same order as the uncertainty of the position of electrons in the particle’s atoms, and therefore negligible

    and∆p= p 2me ×(10eV)yieldsδR≈a 0, wherea0 is Bohr’s radius. Hence, deformations due to the impact of the electron are on the same order as the uncertainty of the position of electrons in the particle’s atoms, and therefore negligible. Next, we have scattering of photons from t...

  46. [54]

    Barwick, G

    B. Barwick, G. Gronniger, L. Yuan, S.-H. Liou, and H. Batelaan, A measurement of electron-wall interactions using transmission diffraction from nanofabricated grat- ings, Journal of Applied Physics100(2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    Sonnentag and F

    P. Sonnentag and F. Hasselbach, Measurement of deco- herence of electron waves and visualization<? format?> of the quantum-classical transition, Physical review let- ters98, 200402 (2007)

    2007

  48. [56]

    The attractive image charge potential will lower the crit- ical barrier

  49. [57]

    Astašauskas, A

    V. Astašauskas, A. Bellissimo, P. Kuksa, C. Tomastik, H. Kalbe, and W. S. Werner, Optical and electronic prop- erties of amorphous silicon dioxide by single and double electron spectroscopy, Journal of Electron Spectroscopy and Related Phenomena241, 146829 (2020)

    2020

  50. [58]

    Tandeitnik, G

    D. Tandeitnik, G. Dias, and T. Guerreiro, Heterodyne position detection of an optomechanical system, arXiv preprint arXiv:2607.09912 (2026), arXiv:2607.09912 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Aharonov, J

    Y. Aharonov, J. Anandan, S. Popescu, and L. Vaidman, Superpositions of time evolutions of a quantum system and a quantum time-translation machine, Physical re- view letters64, 2965 (1990)

    1990

  52. [60]

    Henkel and R

    C. Henkel and R. Folman, Limit on spatial quantum su- perpositions with massive objects due to phonons, arXiv preprint arXiv:2305.15230 (2023)

    2023 arXiv

  53. [61]

    M. Kuok, H. Lim, S. Ng, N. Liu, and Z. Wang, Bril- louin study of the quantization of acoustic modes in nanospheres, Physical review letters90, 255502 (2003)

    2003

  54. [62]

    V. Jain, J. Gieseler, C. Moritz, C. Dellago, R. Quidant, and L. Novotny, Direct measurement of photon recoil from a levitated nanoparticle, Physical review letters 116, 243601 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Hackermüller, K

    L. Hackermüller, K. Hornberger, B.Brezger, A.Zeilinger, and M. Arndt, Decoherence of matter waves by thermal emission of radiation, Nature427, 711 (2004)

    2004

  56. [64]

    M. Aspelmeyer, When zeh meets feynman: how to avoid the appearance of a classical world in gravity experi- ments, inFrom Quantum to Classical: Essays in Honour of H.-Dieter Zeh(Springer, 2022) pp. 85–95

    2022

  57. [65]

    M. Bild, M. Fadel, Y. Yang, U. Von Lüpke, P. Mar- tin, A. Bruno, and Y. Chu, Schrödinger cat states of a 16-microgram mechanical oscillator, Science380, 274 (2023)

    2023

  58. [66]

    Almeida and P

    F. Almeida and P. Barker, Levitated optomechanics with cylindrically polarized vortex beams, arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.05384 (2025)

    2025

  59. [67]

    Tandeitnik, L

    D. Tandeitnik, L. Bicanchi, J. A. Zielińska, P. A. Maia Neto, and T. Guerreiro, Position measurement of a levi- tated particle with vectorial light (2026), in preparation

    2026

  60. [68]

    F.Tebbenjohanns, M.Frimmer,andL.Novotny,Optimal position detection of a dipolar scatterer in a focused field, Physical Review A100, 043821 (2019)

    2019

  61. [69]

    Pedalino, B

    S. Pedalino, B. E. Ramírez-Galindo, R. Ferstl, K. Horn- berger, M. Arndt, and S. Gerlich, Probing quantum me- chanics with nanoparticle matter-wave interferometry, Nature649, 866 (2026)

    2026

  62. [70]

    Penrose, On the gravitization of quantum mechanics 1: Quantum state reduction, Foundations of Physics44, 557 (2014)

    R. Penrose, On the gravitization of quantum mechanics 1: Quantum state reduction, Foundations of Physics44, 557 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    Romero-Isart, Quantum superposition of massive ob- jects and collapse models, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics84, 052121 (2011)

    O. Romero-Isart, Quantum superposition of massive ob- jects and collapse models, Physical Review A—Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics84, 052121 (2011)

    2011

  64. [72]

    Hebestreit, R

    E. Hebestreit, R. Reimann, M. Frimmer, and L. Novotny, Measuring the internal temperature of a levitated nanoparticle in high vacuum, Physical Review A97, 043803 (2018)

    2018

  65. [73]

    V. I. Arnold, K. Vogtmann, and A. Weinstein,Mathe- matical methods of classical mechanics, Vol. 60 (Springer, 1989). Appendix A: Electric actuation for arbitrarily charged particles Consider that the harmonic oscillator has an initial charge given byQ=Ze, and we apply the elec...

    1989

Pith tools

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