Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 60 references

This paper proposes that squeezing the mechanical mode of a levitated particle exponentially enhances the gravity-induced coupling, giving a gravimeter whose time-normalized sensitivity improves as e^{-r} while preserving the mass advantage

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 12:57 UTC pith:6IQS23VW

load-bearing objection Rotating-frame error kills the central e^r enhancement; the QFI math is fine but the Hamiltonian is wrong. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2605.28289 v2 pith:6IQS23VW submitted 2026-05-27 quant-ph

Mechanical Squeezed-Fock Gravimeter

Rozhin Yousefjani , Saif Al-Kuwari This is my paper
classification quant-ph PACS 42.50.Lc03.65.-w
keywords quantum gravimetrylevitated optomechanicsmechanical qubitsqueezed-Fock statestwo-phonon pumpDuffing oscillatorquantum Fisher informationanisotropic decoherence
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 proposes a new type of gravimeter built from a levitated mechanical oscillator, in which a two-phonon pump squeezes the center-of-mass motion so that the two lowest energy levels form a 'squeezed-Fock qubit.' The central claim is that in this basis a static gravitational force couples to the anti-squeezed quadrature, amplifying the gravity-induced transition rate by the factor e^r (r = squeezing parameter) while preserving the direct mass scaling of mechanical force coupling. Working through quantum estimation theory, the paper shows that a simple measurement of the excited squeezed-Fock population saturates the quantum Fisher information in the weak-force regime, yielding a time-normalized sensitivity √T δg ≃ e^{-r}√(πℏωω_b/8m). It further shows that mechanical damping becomes anisotropic under squeezing, setting a trade-off between signal amplification and decoherence that determines the practical operating window. If correct, this would give levitated-particle gravimeters an exponential sensitivity boost without coupling to auxiliary systems.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that squeezing the mechanical mode of a levitated particle converts a static gravitational force into an exponentially enhanced transverse coupling in the qubit subspace, while preserving the direct mass scaling of the mechanical coupling. With the pump phase θ=π, the displacement operator obeys â+â†=e^r(b̂+b̂†), mapping the force term (mg−F)x0(â+â†) to G(b̂+b̂†) with G=e^r(mg−F)x0; in the two-level subspace this becomes (ℏΩ_g^s/2)σ_x with Ω_g^s=2e^r(mg−F)x0/ℏ. For a weak force (Ω_g^s≪ω_b), the quantum Fisher information for estimating g is F_Q≃(8me^{2r}/ℏωω_b²)sin²(ω_b t/2), which peaks at t=π/ω_b and is saturated by the excited squeezed-Fock population measurem

What carries the argument

The key object is the mechanical squeezed-Fock qubit (MSFQ): the two lowest eigenstates of a Duffing mechanical oscillator driven by a detuned two-phonon pump. The pump amplitude A_p and detuning δ fix the squeezing parameter through tanh(2r)=A_p/δ; the effective qubit splitting is ω_b=√(δ²−A_p²)−D(8cosh²r sinh²r+4 sinh⁴r), while the effective anharmonicity U_b=D(3cosh(4r)+1)/4 grows like e^{4r}, protecting the qubit subspace from leakage. The load-bearing identity is â+â†=e^r(b̂+b̂†) at pump phase θ=π, which turns the static force into a transverse qubit field Gσ_x and produces the exponential gain. The same Bogoliubov transformation maps ordinary mechanical damping into anisotropic qubit n

Load-bearing premise

The whole exponential gain rests on the assumption that a static gravitational force in the laboratory frame becomes a static transverse qubit coupling in the squeezed-Fock frame—if the force instead oscillates at the pump frequency and averages away, the enhancement disappears.

What would settle it

Derive the exact time dependence of the transformed force term in the interaction picture with respect to the effective squeezed Hamiltonian and check whether a static σ_x survives the RWA; if the force term oscillates at ≈ω_p and averages away, the predicted exponential enhancement is refuted.

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

If this is right

  • Sensitivity of a levitated-particle gravimeter improves exponentially with the squeezing parameter while retaining the √m mass enhancement, reaching competitive sub-µGal/√Hz performance at moderate r.
  • A simple population measurement of the squeezed-Fock excited state is provably optimal in the weak-force regime, so no complex readout is needed in the coherent limit.
  • Tuning the Duffing nonlinearity simultaneously lowers ω_b (lengthening the optimal interrogation time and tightening the sensitivity bound) and raises the effective anharmonicity U_b (suppressing leakage), so the sensor's operating point is set by the RWA-validity boundary.
  • Under damping, squeezing converts isotropic dissipation into anisotropic noise with one strongly enhanced rate Γ_y∝e^{2r}; the optimal squeezing is therefore capped by Γ_eff/ω_b≲1, and the readout must be rotated along the SLD direction.
  • Since only a stable Kerr-type squeezed spectrum with low leakage is needed, the scheme generalizes beyond Duffing nonlinearities to any anharmonic mechanism that produces such a spectrum.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the exponential gain depends on the static lab-frame force surviving as a static σ_x in the rotating frame; if the force term acquires e^{±iω_p t} phases and is dropped by the same RWA that produced the effective Hamiltonian, the enhancement would vanish—this step deserves explicit verification.
  • Because the sensor measures g only relative to the compensation force F, it is a relative gravimeter; slow drifts or fluctuations in F would enter directly as apparent gravity signals, so the calibration route of applying a known test force (as in the paper's Appendix B) is essential in practice.
  • The scheme's sensitivity improves as ω_b is reduced, but this also lengthens the optimal interrogation time and makes the system more susceptible to the anisotropic decoherence channel, suggesting a multivariate optimization over r, D, and γ_0 rather than a single best squeezing value.
  • If the static-force mapping fails, a natural fallback would be to modulate the compensation force or the trap stiffness at the qubit frequency to convert the static gravity signal into a resonant drive, but that would trade away the exponential e^r enhancement claimed here.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a levitated-mechanics gravimeter based on a Duffing oscillator driven by a detuned two-phonon pump, encoding a squeezed-Fock qubit in the center-of-mass motion. It claims that a static gravitational force couples to the anti-squeezed quadrature in this basis, producing a Hamiltonian-level e^r enhancement and a time-normalized sensitivity sqrt(T)δg_opt ≃ e^{-r}√(πℏωω_b/8m). The paper derives exact QFI and CFI expressions, argues that a squeezed-Fock population measurement saturates the QFI in the weak-force regime, and extends the analysis to zero- and finite-temperature mechanical damping with anisotropic qubit decoherence and SLD-optimized readout. The analytic machinery in Appendices A–C is detailed and internally consistent once the effective qubit Hamiltonian of Eq. (6) is accepted.

Significance. If the central Hamiltonian mapping were correct, the result would be significant: a mass-enhanced static gravimeter whose sensitivity improves exponentially with squeezing, with explicit QFI saturation and a practical decoherence trade-off. The paper is genuinely useful in its careful treatment of the QFI/CFI for a damped qubit and in its closed-form Bloch-equation solution. However, the physical basis of the enhancement is invalid as presented, so these strengths do not support the paper's central claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV, Eq. (6)] The mapping from the lab-frame static force to a time-independent Gσ_x term omits the transformation to the rotating frame. Under U0(t)=e^{-iω_p â†ât}, the force term becomes (mg−F)x0(â e^{-iω_p t}+â†e^{iω_p t}), not (mg−F)x0(â+â†). With θ=π and â=cosh r b̂+sinh r b̂†, moving to the interaction picture with respect to H0=ω_b b̂†b̂ leaves only terms rotating at frequencies ω_p±ω_b. In the regime used in Figs. 1 and 2 (δ/ω=0.05), ω_p≈0.95ω and ω_b≲0.05ω, so these frequencies are much larger than the 2ω_b and 4ω_b terms that Appendix A drops in its RWA. Consequently, the same RWA that produces Eq. (5) removes the force term, and the time-independent σ_x term in Eq. (6) does not appear. The e^r-enhanced Rabi frequency Ω_g^s and Eq. (9) are therefore unsupported; a static force produces at most an off-resonant displacement or Floquet correction, not cumulative population transfer.
  2. [Appendix C, Eq. (C4)] The same omission propagates into the decoherence analysis. The projection of â onto the squeezed-qubit subspace uses the instantaneous Bogoliubov relation â→cosh r σ_- + sinh r σ_+ without the rotating-frame phases e^{±iω_p t}. The anisotropic rates in Eq. (15) are therefore rates for an effective model whose gravitational coupling has not been established. The master-equation solution method itself is sound, but it is applied to a Hamiltonian derived from an invalid step.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Throughout] The text uses the spacing 'RW A' instead of 'RWA', and there are minor typos such as 'coresponding'.
  2. [Fig. 1] The axis labels contain rendering artifacts (e.g., 'pT/gsopt' and '7Gal/pHz'); final figures should use standard SI notation and clear subscripts.
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (B16)] The relative-uncertainty propagation formula assumes independent errors but does not state this assumption; the covariance terms should be mentioned for completeness.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; Eq. (9) follows from the model and QFI calculus, not from a fit or self-citation.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (9), is obtained by combining the effective squeezed-qubit Hamiltonian (Eq. (6)) with the standard pure-state QFI formula (Eqs. (B6)-(B8)) and then taking the weak-force limit; it is not equivalent by construction to any fitted quantity. The parameter Omega_g^s is linked to g through the algebraic identity a+a^dagger = e^r(b+b^dagger) at theta=pi, which is a derivation step, not a fitted input. Appendix B explicitly separates parameter calibration from estimation: fitting P1(t) yields omega_b and Omega from the same data, and the combined scale factor 2e^r x0/hbar can be calibrated independently with a test force. There is no self-citation chain: the load-bearing MSFQ framework [48] and the MQ/MCQ benchmarks [26] are external works by other authors. The only overlapping citation is [51], a review reference for quantum estimation theory, and it is not load-bearing. The possible dropped e^{±i omega_p t} phase in Section IV is a validity/correctness concern about the rotating-frame and RWA treatment, not a circularity: the sensitivity formula is not forced by its own inputs. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited, and the paper is best described as self-contained with respect to the circularity criteria; the small score 1 merely reflects the presence of one minor non-load-bearing self-citation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to data; m, ω, δ, A_p, D, γ0, and T are physical platform inputs or controls, used only for illustrative plots. The central derivation depends on the effective squeezed-Fock Hamiltonian from Ref. [48] and on the two-level truncation and RWA validity, which are assumptions the paper does not fully re-derive. No new physical entities are postulated.

axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Duffing nonlinearity of strength D with the given sign is present in levitated optomechanical systems and dominates the anharmonic splitting.
    Invoked in Section III, Eq. (2), and justified by reference to experimental characterization of Duffing nonlinearities [46].
  • domain assumption The two-phonon pump and Bogoliubov transformation, together with the RWA, reduce the driven Duffing oscillator to the effective squeezed-Fock Hamiltonian Eq. (5).
    Appendix A derives this under the conditions that the dropped terms are small and the qubit gap remains open; the paper maps the valid region numerically.
  • domain assumption The static lab-frame gravity force maps to a time-independent transverse field e^r G σ_x in the squeezed-Fock qubit frame.
    Section IV states 'Selecting θ=π, results in â+â†=e^r(b̂+b̂†)' and inserts this into the qubit Hamiltonian without explicitly treating the rotating-frame time dependence or showing the RWA survival of this term. This is the load-bearing premise of the e^r enhancement.
  • domain assumption The two-level truncation is valid: leakage to higher squeezed-Fock states is negligible because G≪2U_b and the RWA is satisfied.
    Stated in Section IV and discussed in Appendix A; the paper requires F and g deviations small enough to suppress leakage.
  • domain assumption Mechanical damping is Markovian and described by the standard Lindblad dissipator in the lab frame, with zero- and finite-temperature contributions given by γ0 and n_th.
    Section V and Appendix C use the standard master equation [53-57]; this is a standard domain assumption for levitated optomechanics.
  • standard math Quantum estimation theory: the QFI and SLD formulas used are valid for the pure and mixed qubit states considered.
    Section II states the standard quantum Cramér-Rao bound and the qubit QFI formula [49-52]; this is standard mathematical background.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 19896 in / 30857 out tokens · 326698 ms · 2026-08-02T12:57:16.859309+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Levitated mechanical systems are promising candidates for quantum gravimetry, as gravity couples directly to their center-of-mass motion, enabling the large mass of a mesoscopic particle to serve as a sensing resource. In this paper, we propose a mechanical squeezed-Fock qubit gravimeter using a Duffing oscillator that is driven by a detuned two-phonon pump. In the squeezed-Fock basis, the gravitational force couples to the anti-squeezed quadrature, which enhances the gravity-induced transition rate while preserving the direct mass scaling of the mechanical force coupling. We show that sensitivity improves with reduced effective qubit splitting that is controlled by the squeezing parameter and the Duffing nonlinearity. We further analyze mechanical damping and show that squeezing converts ordinary dissipation into anisotropic qubit noise, setting a practical trade-off between signal amplification and decoherence rate. These results identify the mechanical squeezed-Fock qubit as a new platform for quantum-enhanced gravimetry.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.28289 by Rozhin Yousefjani, Saif Al-Kuwari.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Coherent performance of the MSFQ gravimeter. (a) Time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Coherent performance of the MSFQ gravimeter. (a) Time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Decoherent performance of the MSFQ gravimeter, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Decoherent performance of the MSFQ gravimeter, for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Stray, A

    B. Stray, A. Lamb, A. Kaushik, J. V ovrosh, A. Rodgers, J. Winch, F. Hayati, D. Boddice, A. Stabrawa, A. Niggebaum, M. Langlois, Y .-H. Lien, S. Lellouch, S. Roshanmanesh, K. Ri- dley, G. de Villiers, G. Brown, T. Cross, G. Tuckwell, A. Fara- marzi, N. Metje, K. Bongs, and M. Holynski, Quantum sensing for gravity cartography, Nature602, 590 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    S. E. Crawford, G. R. Lander, H. P. Paudel, M. R. Slot, N. Lalam, J. Wuenschell, R. Pingree, R. Oueid, R. Wright, M. Buric, M. M. Brister, and Y . Duan, Quantum sensing for emerging energy technologies, Nat. Rev. Clean Technol.1, 861 (2025)

    2025

  3. [3]

    Forster, A

    F. Forster, A. G ¨untner, P. Jousset, M. Reich, B. M¨annel, J. Hin- derer, and K. Erbas, Environmental and anthropogenic gravity contributions at the theistareykir geothermal field, north Ice- land, Geothermal Energy9, 26 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    X. Wu, Z. Pagel, B. S. Malek, T. H. Nguyen, F. Zi, D. S. Scheirer, and H. M ¨uller, Gravity surveys using a mobile atom interferometer, Science Advances5, eaax0800 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    Krelina, Quantum technology for military applications, EPJ Quantum Technol.8, 24 (2021)

    M. Krelina, Quantum technology for military applications, EPJ Quantum Technol.8, 24 (2021)

    2021

  6. [6]

    Ye and P

    J. Ye and P. Zoller, Essay: Quantum sensing with atomic, molecular, and optical platforms for fundamental physics, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 190001 (2024)

    2024

  7. [7]

    Poli, F.-Y

    N. Poli, F.-Y . Wang, M. G. Tarallo, A. Alberti, M. Prevedelli, and G. M. Tino, Precision measurement of gravity with cold atoms in an optical lattice and comparison with a classical gravimeter, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 038501 (2011)

    2011

  8. [8]

    Kasevich and S

    M. Kasevich and S. Chu, Atomic interferometry using stimu- lated Raman transitions, Phys. Rev. Lett.67, 181 (1991)

    1991

  9. [9]

    Peters, K

    A. Peters, K. Y . Chung, and S. Chu, Measurement of gravita- tional acceleration by dropping atoms, Nature400, 849 (1999)

    1999

  10. [10]

    Geiger, A

    R. Geiger, A. Landragin, S. Merlet, and F. Pereira Dos Santos, High-accuracy inertial measurements with cold-atom sensors, A VS Quantum Science2, 024702 (2020)

    2020

  11. [11]

    J. Wei, J. Huang, and C. Lee, Adaptive robust high-precision atomic gravimetry, Phys. Rev. Res.7, L012064 (2025)

    2025

  12. [12]

    Bidel, N

    Y . Bidel, N. Zahzam, C. Blanchard, A. Bonnin, M. Cadoret, A. Bresson, D. Rouxel, and M. F. Lequentrec-Lalancette, Ab- solute marine gravimetry with matter-wave interferometry, Nat. Commun.9, 627 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    Hu, B.-L

    Z.-K. Hu, B.-L. Sun, X.-C. Duan, M.-K. Zhou, L.-L. Chen, S. Zhan, Q.-Z. Zhang, and J. Luo, Demonstration of an ultrahigh-sensitivity atom-interferometry absolute gravimeter, Phys. Rev. A88, 043610 (2013)

    2013

  14. [14]

    M ´enoret, P

    V . M ´enoret, P. Vermeulen, N. Le Moigne, S. Bonvalot, P. Bouyer, A. Landragin, and B. Desruelle, Gravity measure- ments below 10 −9g with a transportable absolute quantum gravimeter, Sci. Rep.8, 12300 (2018)

    2018

  15. [15]

    Zhang, L.-L

    T. Zhang, L.-L. Chen, Y .-B. Shu, W.-J. Xu, Y . Cheng, Q. Luo, Z.-K. Hu, and M.-K. Zhou, Ultrahigh-sensitivity bragg atom gravimeter and its application in testing lorentz violation, Phys. Rev. Applied20, 014067 (2023)

    2023

  16. [16]

    Peters, K

    A. Peters, K. Y . Chung, and S. Chu, High-precision gravity measurements using atom interferometry, Metrologia38, 25 (2001)

    2001

  17. [17]

    Le Gou”et, T

    J. Le Gou”et, T. E. Mehlst”aubler, J. Kim, S. Merlet, A. Clairon, A. Landragin, and F. Pereira Dos Santos, Limits to the sensitiv- ity of a low noise compact atomic gravimeter, Appl. Phys. B92, 133 (2008)

    2008

  18. [18]

    Merlet, J

    S. Merlet, J. Le Gou”et, Q. Bodart, A. Clairon, A. Landragin, F. Pereira Dos Santos, and P. Rouchon, Operating an atom in- terferometer beyond its linear range, Metrologia46, 87 (2009)

    2009

  19. [19]

    Zhou, Z.-K

    M.-K. Zhou, Z.-K. Hu, X.-C. Duan, B.-L. Sun, L.-L. Chen, Q.- Z. Zhang, and J. Luo, Performance of a cold-atom gravime- ter with an active vibration isolator, Phys. Rev. A86, 043630 (2012)

    2012

  20. [20]

    Griggs, M

    C. Griggs, M. Moody, R. Norton, H. Paik, and K. Venkateswara, Sensitive superconducting gravity gra- diometer constructed with levitated test masses, Phys. Rev. Applied8, 064024 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    L. Liu, Y . Li, G. Chen, Q. Xu, Y . Qiu, N. Zhang, L. Chen, and X. Liu, Progress in the development of a spherical supercon- ducting gravimeter based on squid detection, Rev. Sci. Instrum. 96, 10.1063/5.0292856 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1063/5.0292856 2025

  22. [22]

    Rademacher, J

    M. Rademacher, J. Millen, and Y . L. Li, Quantum sensing with nanoparticles for gravimetry: when bigger is better, Adv. Opt. Technol.9, 227 (2020)

    2020

  23. [23]

    Gonzalez-Ballestero, M

    C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, M. Aspelmeyer, L. Novotny, R. Quidant, and O. Romero-Isart, Levitodynamics: levita- tion and control of microscopic objects in vacuum, Science 374, eabg3027 (2021)

    2021

  24. [24]

    S. Bose, I. Fuentes, A. A. Geraci, S. M. Khan, S. Qvarfort, M. Rademacher, M. Rashid, M. Toro ˇs, H. Ulbricht, and C. C. Wanjura, Massive quantum systems as interfaces of quantum mechanics and gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys.97, 015003 (2025)

    2025

  25. [25]

    Dania, D

    L. Dania, D. S. Bykov, F. Goschin, M. Teller, A. Kassid, and T. E. Northup, Ultrahigh quality factor of a levitated nanome- chanical oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 133602 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    Huo, J.-H

    X.-W. Huo, J.-H. An, and P.-B. Li, Quantum gravimetry with mechanical qubits (2026), arXiv:2604.14950 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  27. [27]

    Deli ´c, M

    U. Deli ´c, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V . Vuleti ´c, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, Cooling of a levitated nanopar- ticle to the motional quantum ground state, Science367, 892 (2020)

    2020

  28. [28]

    Tebbenjohanns, M

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

    2021

  29. [29]

    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

  30. [30]

    Kamba, R

    M. Kamba, R. Shimizu, and K. Aikawa, Quantum squeezing of a levitated nanomechanical oscillator, Science389, 1225 (2025)

    2025

  31. [31]

    Marti, U

    S. Marti, U. von L ¨upke, O. Joshi, Y . Yang, M. Bild, A. Oma- hen, Y . Chu, and M. Fadel, Quantum squeezing in a nonlinear mechanical oscillator, Nat. Phys.20, 1448 (2024)

    2024

  32. [32]

    Piotrowski, D

    J. Piotrowski, D. Windey, J. Vijayan, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, A. de los R´ıos Sommer, N. Altundaˇs, A. Blais, O. Romero-Isart, R. Quidant, and U. Deli´c, Simultaneous ground-state cooling of two mechanical modes of a levitated nanoparticle, Nat. Phys. 19, 1009 (2023)

    2023

  33. [33]

    Scala, M

    M. Scala, M. S. Kim, G. W. Morley, P. F. Barker, and S. Bose, Matter-wave interferometry of a levitated thermal nano-oscillator induced and probed by a spin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 180403 (2013)

    2013

  34. [34]

    Wang, J.-F

    L.-Y . Wang, J.-F. Wei, K.-F. Cui, S.-L. Su, L.-L. Yan, H.-Z. Guo, C.-X. Shan, and G. Chen, Enhanced gravity sensing by a levitated mesoscopic nanoparticle, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 120803 (2025)

    2025

  35. [35]

    Qvarfort, A

    S. Qvarfort, A. Serafini, P. F. Barker, and S. Bose, Gravime- try through non-linear optomechanics, Nat. Commun.9, 3690 15 (2018)

    2018

  36. [36]

    P.-B. Li, Y . Zhou, W.-B. Gao, and F. Nori, Enhancing spin- phonon and spin-spin interactions using linear resources in a hybrid quantum system, Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 153602 (2020)

    2020

  37. [37]

    Li, Z.-L

    P.-B. Li, Z.-L. Xiang, P. Rabl, and F. Nori, Hybrid quantum de- vice with nitrogen-vacancy centers in diamond coupled to car- bon nanotubes, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 015502 (2016)

    2016

  38. [38]

    Rips and M

    S. Rips and M. J. Hartmann, Quantum information process- ing with nanomechanical qubits, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 120503 (2013)

    2013

  39. [39]

    Pistolesi, A

    F. Pistolesi, A. N. Cleland, and A. Bachtold, Proposal for a nanomechanical qubit, Phys. Rev. X11, 031027 (2021)

    2021

  40. [40]

    Samanta, S

    C. Samanta, S. L. De Bonis, C. B. Møller, R. Tormo-Queralt, W. Yang, C. Urgell, B. Stamenic, B. Thibeault, Y . Jin, D. A. Czaplewski, F. Pistolesi, and A. Bachtold, Nonlinear nanome- chanical resonators approaching the quantum ground state, Nat. Phys.19, 1340 (2023)

    2023

  41. [41]

    Sharma, J

    P. Sharma, J. Koch, and E. Ginossar, Towards a micromechan- ical qubit based on quantized oscillations in superfluid helium (2025), arXiv:2409.02028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  42. [42]

    Savel’ev, X

    S. Savel’ev, X. Hu, and F. Nori, Quantum electromechanics: Qubits from buckling nanobars, New J. Phys.8, 105 (2006)

    2006

  43. [43]

    Savel’ev, A

    S. Savel’ev, A. L. Rakhmanov, X. Hu, A. Kasumov, and F. Nori, Quantum electromechanics: Quantum tunneling near resonance and qubits from buckling nanobars, Phys. Rev. B75, 165417 (2007)

    2007

  44. [44]

    S. Rips, I. Wilson-Rae, and M. J. Hartmann, Nonlinear nanome- chanical resonators for quantum optoelectromechanics, Phys. Rev. A89, 013854 (2014)

    2014

  45. [45]

    Fl ¨uhmann, T

    C. Fl ¨uhmann, T. L. Nguyen, M. Marinelli, V . Negnevitsky, K. Mehta, and J. P. Home, Encoding a qubit in a trapped-ion mechanical oscillator, Nature566, 513 (2019)

    2019

  46. [46]

    Y . Yang, I. Kladari´c, M. Drimmer, U. von L¨upke, D. Lenterman, J. Bus, S. Marti, M. Fadel, and Y . Chu, A mechanical qubit, Science386, 783 (2024)

    2024

  47. [47]

    Pistolesi, The journey to a mechanical qubit, Science386, 728 (2024)

    F. Pistolesi, The journey to a mechanical qubit, Science386, 728 (2024)

    2024

  48. [48]

    Qiao, J.-H

    Y .-F. Qiao, J.-H. An, and P.-B. Li, Mechanical squeezed-fock qubit: Towards quantum weak-force sensing, Phys. Rev. Lett. 136, 040801 (2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    C. W. Helstrom, Quantum detection and estimation theory, J. Stat. Phys.1, 231 (1969)

    1969

  50. [50]

    M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, Int. J. Quantum Inf.7, 125 (2009)

    2009

  51. [51]

    Montenegro, C

    V . Montenegro, C. Mukhopadhyay, R. Yousefjani, S. Sarkar, U. Mishra, M. G. A. Paris, and A. Bayat, Review: Quantum metrology and sensing with many-body systems, Phys. Rep. 1134, 1 (2025)

    2025

  52. [52]

    S. L. Braunstein and C. M. Caves, Statistical distance and the geometry of quantum states, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3439 (1994)

    1994

  53. [53]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Optics, 3rd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2004)

    2004

  54. [54]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  55. [55]

    Aspelmeyer, T

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

    2014

  56. [56]

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

    2010

  57. [57]

    Fazio, J

    R. Fazio, J. Keeling, L. Mazza, and M. Schir `o, Many-body open quantum systems, SciPost Physics Lecture Notes99, 10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.99 (2025)

    doi:10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.99 2025

  58. [58]

    Gieseler, L

    J. Gieseler, L. Novotny, and R. Quidant, Thermal nonlinearities in a nanomechanical oscillator, Nature Phys.9, 806 (2013)

    2013

  59. [59]

    Delic, M

    U. Delic, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V . Vuleti ´c, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, Cooling of a levitated nanopar- ticle to the motional quantum ground state, Science367, 892 (2020)

    2020

  60. [60]

    Ranjit, M

    G. Ranjit, M. Cunningham, K. Casey, and A. A. Geraci, At- tonewton force detection using microspheres in a dual-beam optical trap in high vacuum, Phys. Rev. A93, 053801 (2016)

    2016