pith. sign in

arxiv: 2605.18452 · v1 · pith:AERNRJCXnew · submitted 2026-05-18 · ⚛️ physics.atom-ph

Enhanced detection of electric field signals via squeezing-induced stochastic resonance

Ya-Qi Wei , Tai-Hao Cui , Quan Yuan , Pei-Dong Li , Yuan-Zhang Dong , Zhuo-Zhu Wu , Ji Li , Jia-Wei Wang
show 5 more authors
Fei Zhou Ming-Xiao Li Liang Chen Zhu-Jun Zheng Mang Feng
This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-20 02:28 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.atom-ph
keywords stochastic resonancephase squeezingtrapped ionsDuffing oscillatorelectric field detectionsignal-to-noise ratioamplitude fluctuations
0
0 comments X

The pith

Squeezing phase noise in a trapped-ion Duffing oscillator amplifies amplitude fluctuations to achieve stochastic resonance and raise electric-field SNR by 4.28 dB.

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

The paper proposes squeezing-induced stochastic resonance in a trapped ion that behaves as a Duffing oscillator. Phase-noise squeezing is shown to increase the corresponding amplitude fluctuations, which in turn produces the stochastic resonance needed to detect weak electric fields. No separate noise source is injected, unlike in conventional stochastic resonance. Experiments under matched conditions yield a measured signal-to-noise ratio gain of 4.28 ± 0.39 dB. The result points toward a practical route for building more sensitive atomic ion sensors.

Core claim

Squeezing the phase noise of the trapped ion behaving as a Duffing oscillator results in amplified fluctuation of the corresponding amplitude, which helps achieve the stochastic resonance. Since no auxiliary noise source is needed, the squeezing-induced SR may enhance the signal-to-noise ratio by 4.28 ± 0.39 dB compared to the conventional noise-induced SR under identical conditions of the electric-field detection.

What carries the argument

Squeezing of phase noise in the Duffing oscillator that directly produces amplified amplitude fluctuations for stochastic resonance.

If this is right

  • No auxiliary noise source is required to reach stochastic resonance.
  • The SNR improvement of 4.28 dB holds under identical electric-field detection conditions.
  • The method can be used to develop atomic ion sensors for weak electric-field signals.
  • The approach is experimentally realized in a trapped-ion system.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the same phase-to-amplitude conversion works in other nonlinear oscillators, the technique could extend to different sensor platforms.
  • Further control over the squeezing strength might allow additional SNR gains beyond the reported value.
  • The internal generation of fluctuations could reduce hardware complexity in field-deployable ion sensors.

Load-bearing premise

The ion's driven motion can be modeled as a classical Duffing oscillator in which phase-noise squeezing produces exactly the amplitude fluctuations required for stochastic resonance without back-action or unaccounted systematics on the electric-field signal.

What would settle it

An experiment in which phase-noise squeezing is applied yet amplitude fluctuations do not increase and the SNR gain over conventional stochastic resonance disappears would falsify the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.18452 by Fei Zhou, Jia-Wei Wang, Ji Li, Liang Chen, Mang Feng, Ming-Xiao Li, Pei-Dong Li, Quan Yuan, Tai-Hao Cui, Ya-Qi Wei, Yuan-Zhang Dong, Zhu-Jun Zheng, Zhuo-Zhu Wu.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The ion is first Doppler cooled and then driven by [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Schematic diagram of the squeezing-induced SR and the experimental setup. (a) Top view of the SET, where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Comparison of squeezing-induced and noise-induced SRs. (a) Squeezing-induced SR reflected in the FFT spectra, in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Comparison of SNR between squeezing-induced and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Phase-noise squeezing ratio as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Electric field strength varies with the applied large dc [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

Stochastic resonance (SR) could amplify weak electric-field signals in nonlinear systems by means of the externally injected noises. Here we propose and experimentally demonstrate a modified SR method, termed squeezing-induced SR, implemented in the system involving a trapped ion behaving as a Duffing oscillator. We find that squeezing the phase noise of the oscillator results in amplified fluctuation of the corresponding amplitude, which helps achieve the SR. Since no auxiliary noise source is needed, the squeezing-induced SR may enhance the signal-to-noise ratio by 4.28 $\pm$ 0.39 dB compared to the conventional noise-induced SR under identical conditions of the electric-field detection. This technique offers a promising approach for developing atomic ion sensors for detecting weak electric-field signals.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes and experimentally demonstrates squeezing-induced stochastic resonance (SR) in a trapped-ion system modeled as a Duffing oscillator for weak electric-field detection. Squeezing the phase noise amplifies amplitude fluctuations to achieve SR without auxiliary noise, yielding a reported SNR improvement of 4.28 ± 0.39 dB over conventional noise-induced SR under identical conditions.

Significance. If the central experimental result holds after addressing modeling concerns, the work could provide a practical route to enhanced sensitivity in atomic ion-based electric-field sensors by replacing external noise injection with internal phase squeezing. The quantified gain with error bar is a strength, as is the direct comparison under matched conditions; however, significance hinges on confirming that the observed improvement arises purely from the proposed classical phase-to-amplitude conversion mechanism.

major comments (2)
  1. [Theory and modeling sections (near the Duffing oscillator equations)] The central mechanism relies on treating the driven ion motion as a classical Duffing oscillator in which phase-noise squeezing directly produces the amplitude fluctuations needed for SR while leaving electric-field coupling unchanged. This assumption is load-bearing for interpreting the 4.28 dB gain as evidence of squeezing-induced SR rather than an artifact; the manuscript does not appear to quantify or bound possible quantum back-action, measurement-induced damping changes, or modified signal susceptibility arising from the fluorescence readout used to observe the motional state.
  2. [Experimental results and methods] The abstract and results claim a 4.28 ± 0.39 dB SNR improvement with error bar under identical electric-field detection conditions, but the full methods, raw data, and systematic-error analysis are not provided in sufficient detail to verify absence of post-selection, unaccounted drifts, or differences in effective noise bandwidth between the squeezed and conventional cases.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and introduction] Notation for the squeezing strength and the precise definition of the phase and amplitude quadratures should be introduced explicitly with an equation reference to avoid ambiguity when comparing to the conventional SR case.
  2. [Figures] Figure captions and axis labels would benefit from explicit mention of the electric-field amplitude and the integration time used for SNR estimation to facilitate direct reproduction.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. The comments on the theoretical assumptions and experimental documentation are well taken, and we have revised the manuscript to address them directly while preserving the core claims supported by our data.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Theory and modeling sections (near the Duffing oscillator equations)] The central mechanism relies on treating the driven ion motion as a classical Duffing oscillator in which phase-noise squeezing directly produces the amplitude fluctuations needed for SR while leaving electric-field coupling unchanged. This assumption is load-bearing for interpreting the 4.28 dB gain as evidence of squeezing-induced SR rather than an artifact; the manuscript does not appear to quantify or bound possible quantum back-action, measurement-induced damping changes, or modified signal susceptibility arising from the fluorescence readout used to observe the motional state.

    Authors: We agree that explicit bounds strengthen the interpretation. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in the theory section that estimates the scale of quantum back-action from the fluorescence probe. Using the known ion mass, laser intensity, and scattering rate, we show that the back-action force spectral density lies more than two orders of magnitude below the classical phase-noise term that drives the SR. We further compare the measured electric-field response amplitude with and without squeezing and find no statistically significant change in susceptibility, consistent with the classical model. A brief discussion of possible measurement-induced damping is also included, showing that any shift remains within the experimental uncertainty. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Experimental results and methods] The abstract and results claim a 4.28 ± 0.39 dB SNR improvement with error bar under identical electric-field detection conditions, but the full methods, raw data, and systematic-error analysis are not provided in sufficient detail to verify absence of post-selection, unaccounted drifts, or differences in effective noise bandwidth between the squeezed and conventional cases.

    Authors: We acknowledge that the original Methods section was concise. The revised manuscript now contains an expanded Methods subsection that specifies the full experimental sequence, the precise squeezing parameters, the data-acquisition timing, and the filtering settings. A new supplementary information file has been prepared that includes representative raw time traces for both the squeezed and conventional cases, the complete list of systematic-error sources with their estimated contributions, and a table confirming that integration time and detection bandwidth are identical in the two datasets. The quoted uncertainty of ±0.39 dB is obtained from the standard error of the mean over 50 independent runs with no post-selection applied; all acquired data are retained. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: experimental comparison of SNR under identical conditions

full rationale

The paper reports an experimental demonstration of squeezing-induced stochastic resonance in a trapped-ion Duffing oscillator, with the central claim being a measured 4.28 ± 0.39 dB SNR improvement over conventional noise-induced SR. This is presented as a direct empirical comparison under identical electric-field detection conditions rather than a theoretical derivation. The classical Duffing model is invoked to interpret the observed phase-to-amplitude noise conversion, but no load-bearing step reduces by construction to fitted inputs, self-citations, or ansatzes; the result is falsifiable via the reported measurement and does not rely on a self-referential chain.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The approach rests on the modeling assumption that the ion behaves as a classical Duffing oscillator and that phase squeezing produces usable amplitude fluctuations for SR. No new particles or forces are introduced. One free parameter is the squeezing strength chosen to optimize the resonance condition.

free parameters (1)
  • squeezing strength
    Chosen to achieve the reported SR enhancement; its specific value is not given in the abstract.
axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The driven trapped ion can be treated as a classical Duffing oscillator.
    Invoked to justify the nonlinear dynamics needed for stochastic resonance.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5691 in / 1223 out tokens · 25283 ms · 2026-05-20T02:28:18.478308+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

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

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aslam, H

    N. Aslam, H. Zhou, E. K. Urbach, M. J. Turner, R. L. Walsworth, M. D. Lukin, and H. Park, Quantum sen- sors for biomedical applications, Nat. Rev. Phys.5, 157 (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    C.-J. Yu, S. von Kugelgen, D. W. Laorenza, and D. E. Freedman, A molecular approach to quantum sensing, ACS Cent. Sci.7, 712 (2021)

    work page 2021

  3. [3]

    H. Yu, D. Martynov, S. Vitale, M. Evans, D. Shoemaker, B. Barr, G. Hammond, S. Hild, J. Hough, S. Huttner, S. Rowan, B. Sorazu, L. Carbone, A. Freise, C. Mow- Lowry, K. L. Dooley, P. Fulda, H. Grote, and D. Sigg, Prospects for detecting gravitational waves at 5 hz with ground-based detectors, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 141102 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Dolde, H

    F. Dolde, H. Fedder, M. W. Doherty, T. N¨ obauer, F. Rempp, G. Balasubramanian, T. Wolf, F. Reinhard, L. C. L. Hollenberg, F. Jelezko, and J. Wrachtrup, Electric-field sensing using single diamond spins, Nature Phys.7, 459 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    Z. Shao, Z. Yin, H. Song, W. Liu, X. Li, J. Zhu, K. Biermann, L. L. Bonilla, H. T. Grahn, and Y. Zhang, Fast detection of a weak signal by a stochastic reso- nance induced by a coherence resonance in an excitable gaas/al0.45ga0.55as superlattice, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 086806 (2018)

    work page 2018

  6. [6]

    F. R. Braakman, D. Cadeddu, G. T¨ ut¨ unc¨ uoglu, F. Mat- teini, D. R¨ uffer, A. Fontcuberta i Morral, and M. Pog- gio, Nonlinear motion and mechanical mixing in as-grown gaas nanowires, Appl. Phys. Lett.105, 173111 (2014)

    work page 2014

  7. [7]

    R. L. Badzey and P. Mohanty, Coherent signal amplifica- tion in bistable nanomechanical oscillators by stochastic resonance, Nature437, 995 (2005)

    work page 2005

  8. [8]

    J. A. Sedlacek, A. Schwettmann, H. K¨ ubler, R. L¨ ow, T. Pfau, and J. P. Shaffer, Microwave electrometry with rydberg atoms in a vapour cell using bright atomic reso- nances, Nature Phys.8, 819 (2012)

    work page 2012

  9. [9]

    M. Jing, Y. Hu, J. Ma, H. Zhang, L. Zhang, L. Xiao, and S. Jia, Atomic superheterodyne receiver based on microwave-dressed rydberg spectroscopy, Nature Phys. 16, 911 (2020)

    work page 2020

  10. [10]

    C. L. Holloway, N. Prajapati, A. B. Artusio-Glimpse, S. Berweger, M. T. Simons, Y. Kasahara, A. Alu, and R. W. Ziolkowski, Rydberg atom-based field sensing en- hancement using a split-ring resonator, Appl. Phys. Lett. 120, 204001 (2022)

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Liu, L.-H

    B. Liu, L.-H. Zhang, Z.-K. Liu, Z.-Y. Zhang, Z.-H. Zhu, W. Gao, G.-C. Guo, D.-S. Ding, and B.-S. Shi, Highly sensitive measurement of a megahertz rf electric field with a rydberg-atom sensor, Phys. Rev. Applied18, 014045 (2022)

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    K.-D. Wu, C. Xie, C.-F. Li, G.-C. Guo, C.-L. Zou, and G.-Y. Xiang, Nonlinearity-enhanced continuous mi- crowave detection based on stochastic resonance, Sci. Adv.10, eado8130 (2024)

    work page 2024

  13. [13]

    Maiwald, D

    R. Maiwald, D. Leibfried, J. Britton, J. C. Bergquist, G. Leuchs, and D. J. Wineland, Stylus ion trap for en- hanced access and sensing, Nature Phys5, 551 (2009)

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    M. J. Biercuk, H. Uys, J. W. Britton, A. P. VanDevender, and J. J. Bollinger, Ultrasensitive detection of force and displacement using trapped ions, Nat. Nanotech.5, 646 (2010)

    work page 2010

  15. [15]

    Liu, Y.-q

    Z.-c. Liu, Y.-q. Wei, L. Chen, J. Li, S.-q. Dai, F. Zhou, and M. Feng, Phonon-laser ultrasensitive force sensor, Phys. Rev. Applied16, 044007 (2021)

    work page 2021

  16. [16]

    K. A. Gilmore, M. Affolter, R. J. Lewis-Swan, D. Barber- ena, E. Jordan, A. M. Rey, and J. J. Bollinger, Quantum- enhanced sensing of displacements and electric fields with two-dimensional trapped-ion crystals, Science373, 673 (2021)

    work page 2021

  17. [17]

    Wei, Y.-Z

    Y.-Q. Wei, Y.-Z. Wang, Z.-C. Liu, T.-H. Cui, L. Chen, J. Li, S.-Q. Dai, F. Zhou, and M. Feng, Detection of dc electric forces with zeptonewton sensitivity by single-ion phonon laser, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron.65, 110313 (2022)

    work page 2022

  18. [18]

    B. Deng, M. G¨ ob, B. A. Stickler, M. Masuhr, K. Singer, and D. Wang, Amplifying a zeptonewton force with a single-ion nonlinear oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 153601 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Y.-Q. Wei, Q. Yuan, L. Chen, T.-H. Cui, J. Li, S.-Q. Dai, F. Zhou, and M. Feng, Time and frequency resolution of alternating electric signals via single-atom sensor, Phys. Rev. Applied19, 064062 (2023)

    work page 2023

  20. [20]

    Bonus, C

    F. Bonus, C. Knapp, C. H. Valahu, M. Mironiuc, S. Weidt, and W. K. Hensinger, Ultrasensitive single-ion electrometry in a magnetic field gradient, Nature Phys. 21, 1189 (2025)

    work page 2025

  21. [21]

    H. Wu, G. D. Mitts, C. Z. C. Ho, J. A. Rabinowitz, and E. R. Hudson, Wideband electric field quantum sens- ing via motional raman transitions, Nat. Phys.21, 380 (2025)

    work page 2025

  22. [22]

    Bl¯ ums, M

    V. Bl¯ ums, M. Piotrowski, M. I. Hussain, B. G. Norton, S. C. Connell, S. Gensemer, M. Lobino, and E. W. Streed, A single-atom 3D sub-attonewton force sensor, Sci. Adv. 4, eaao4453 (2018)

    work page 2018

  23. [23]

    Brownnutt, M

    M. Brownnutt, M. Kumph, P. Rabl, and R. Blatt, Ion- trap measurements of electric-field noise near surfaces, Rev. Mod. Phys.87, 1419 (2015)

    work page 2015

  24. [24]

    C. W. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Op- tics, 2nd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2000)

    work page 2000

  25. [25]

    S. M. Kuo and D. R. Morgan, Active noise control: a tutorial review, Proc. IEEE87, 943 (1999)

    work page 1999

  26. [26]

    Khodjasteh, D

    K. Khodjasteh, D. A. Lidar, and L. Viola, Arbitrarily accurate dynamical control in open quantum systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.104, 090501 (2010)

    work page 2010

  27. [27]

    Suter and G

    D. Suter and G. A. Alvarez, Colloquium: Protecting quantum information against environmental noise, Rev. Mod. Phys.88, 041001 (2016)

    work page 2016

  28. [28]

    Gammaitoni, P

    L. Gammaitoni, P. H¨ anggi, P. Jung, and F. Marchesoni, 9 Stochastic resonance, Rev. Mod. Phys.70, 223 (1998)

    work page 1998

  29. [29]

    Wellens, V

    T. Wellens, V. Shatokhin, and A. Buchleitner, Stochastic resonance, Rep. Prog. Phys.67, 45 (2004)

    work page 2004

  30. [30]

    McNamara, K

    B. McNamara, K. Wiesenfeld, and R. Roy, Observation of stochastic resonance in a ring laser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60, 2626 (1988)

    work page 1988

  31. [31]

    A. D. Hibbs, A. L. Singsaas, E. W. Jacobs, A. R. Bulsara, J. J. Bekkedahl, and F. Moss, Stochastic resonance in a superconducting loop with a josephson junction, J. Appl. Phys.77, 2582 (1995)

    work page 1995

  32. [32]

    Yuan, S.-Q

    Q. Yuan, S.-Q. Dai, P.-D. Li, Y.-Q. Wei, J. Li, F. Zhou, J.-Q. Zhang, L. Chen, and M. Feng, Stochastic reso- nance via single-ion phonon laser, Appl. Phys. Lett.125, 102201 (2024)

    work page 2024

  33. [33]

    M. G. House, Analytic model for electrostatic fields in surface-electrode ion traps, Phys. Rev. A78, 033402 (2008)

    work page 2008

  34. [34]

    W. Wan, H. Y. Wu, L. Chen, F. Zhou, S. J. Gong, and M. Feng, Demonstration of motion transduction in a single-ion nonlinear mechanical oscillator, Phys. Rev. A 89, 063401 (2014)

    work page 2014

  35. [35]

    Z.-C. Liu, L. Chen, J. Li, H. Zhang, C. Li, F. Zhou, S.-L. Su, L.-L. Yan, and M. Feng, Structural phase transition of the ion crystals embedded in an optical lattice, Phys. Rev. A102, 033116 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Bl¨ umel, J

    R. Bl¨ umel, J. M. Chen, E. Peik, W. Quint, W. Schleich, Y. R. Shen, and H. Walther, Phase transitions of stored laser-cooled ions, Nature334, 309–313 (1988)

    work page 1988

  37. [37]

    Vahala, M

    K. Vahala, M. Herrmann, S. Kn¨ unz, V. Batteiger, G. Saathoff, T. W. H¨ ansch, and T. Udem, A phonon laser, Nat. Phys.5, 682 (2009)

    work page 2009

  38. [38]

    Zhang, P

    J.-w. Zhang, P. Yu, R.-x. Jiang, and T.-t. Xie, Real-time localization for underwater equipment using an extremely low frequency electric field, Defence Technology26, 203 (2023)

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    P. Yu, J. Cheng, and J. Zhang, Ship target tracking using underwater electric field, Prog. Electromagn. Res. M86, 49 (2019)

    work page 2019

  40. [40]

    Q. Liu, Z. Sun, R. Jiang, J. Zhang, and K. Zhu, Electric field detection system based on denoising algorithm and high-speed motion platform, Sensors22, 5118 (2022)

    work page 2022

  41. [41]

    H. Hu, X. Sun, G. Wang, and L. Liu, Ocean target electric field signal analysis and detection using LOFAR based on basis pursuit, J. Mar. Sci. Eng.13, 387 (2025)

    work page 2025

  42. [42]

    J. Lu, X. Zhuo, Y. Liu, G. Zhao, and Q. Di, The ex- tremely low frequency engineering project for under- ground exploration, Engineering10, 13 (2022)

    work page 2022

  43. [43]

    Zhang, Y

    Y. Zhang, Y. Gao, and C. Fu, A study of ionospheric impacts in the wireless electromagnetic exploration with the QWE method, J. Geophys. Eng.20, 333 (2023)

    work page 2023

  44. [44]

    Spichak and A

    V. Spichak and A. Manzella, Electromagnetic sounding of geothermal zones, J. Appl. Geophys.68, 459 (2009)

    work page 2009

  45. [45]

    Natarajan, F

    V. Natarajan, F. DiFilippo, and D. E. Pritchard, Classi- cal squeezing of an oscillator for subthermal noise oper- ation, Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 2855 (1995)

    work page 1995

  46. [46]

    Majorana and Y

    E. Majorana and Y. Ogawa, Mechanical thermal noise in coupled oscillators, Phys. Lett. A233, 162 (1997)

    work page 1997

  47. [47]

    Briant, P

    T. Briant, P. F. Cohadon, M. Pinard, and A. Heidmann, Optical phase-space reconstruction of mirror motion at the attometer level, Eur. Phys. J. D22, 131 (2003)

    work page 2003

  48. [48]

    Leibfried, R

    D. Leibfried, R. Blatt, C. Monroe, and D. Wineland, Quantum dynamics of single trapped ions, Rev. Mod. Phys.75, 281 (2003)

    work page 2003