Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 45 references

Nanohertz Pendulum toward Macroscopic Entanglement under Structural Damping

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that structural damping's low-frequency 1/f tail increases the cooperativity needed to entangle two suspended mirrors by about 49% at 10% detection loss, and that a 7-mg pendulum with a 361-nHz linewidth exceeds the require

desk verdict Solid measurement plus a useful but under-parameterized calculation; the record linewidth is real, but the 1.49 requirement needs a sensitivity scan before it should be quoted as a target. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02462 v1 pith:CQVTZPBX submitted 2026-08-03 quant-ph physics.ins-det

Azusa Sawada , Hina Nakano , Kanta Watanabe , Gaku Ohashi , Shota Okumura , Nobuyuki Matsumoto This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.ins-det
keywords structuraldamping1/fnoisemacroscopicquantumentanglementpendulumfused-silicafiberqualityfactoroptomechanicscooperativity
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

The paper's central claim is that the same structural damping that makes pendulums attractive for macroscopic quantum experiments also produces a 1/f force-noise tail that penalizes entanglement, and that this penalty can be quantified and overcome. At 10% detection loss, the tail raises the critical cooperativity for a benchmark entanglement E_N=0.1 by 49.2%, requiring a 1.49x improvement in suspension quality. The authors then build a 7-mg pendulum on a stepped fused-silica fiber with a measured energy-decay rate of 361 nHz (Q=7.3e6), which gives a measured gain of about 2.5—enough to restore and exceed the margin. A sympathetic reader would care because this turns a previously unquantified noise color into a concrete design target and demonstrates the hardware can meet it.

What carries the argument

The central object is the regularized structural-damping force spectrum S_th(ω) ∝ 1/sqrt(ω²+ω_c²), which behaves as 1/|ω| above a cutoff ω_c/2π=1 Hz and is represented by Ornstein–Uhlenbeck auxiliary states in a closed-loop Kalman-filter model. The experimental counterpart is a stepped fused-silica fiber whose 1-µm waist concentrates bending strain and reduces the modal loss; the performance metric is the suspension gain G_q=(ω0Γ)_previous/(ω0Γ)_stepped, which is proportional to the achievable cooperativity.

What would settle it

Directly measure the off-resonant thermal force noise of the pendulum at frequencies below resonance (e.g., 0.1–2 Hz) to see whether it follows 1/|ω| down to 1 Hz. If the spectrum flattens at higher frequencies, the 49.2% penalty and G_req=1.49 shrink; if it remains 1/f to lower frequencies, they grow.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Structural damping is a double-edged sword for pendulum-based quantum entanglement. While its 1/|ω| force-noise spectrum allows nearly lossless optical trapping at an upward-shifted resonance, it leaves an excess low-frequency tail that increases the cooperativity needed to reach a given entanglement. Using a closed-loop model with finite cavity bandwidth, feedback, detection loss, and a regularized structural spectrum, the paper finds that at 10% detection loss the critical cooperativity for E_N=0.1 rises by 49.2%, corresponding to a required suspension gain G_req=1.49. To meet this, the paper reports a 7-mg pendulum suspended by a stepped fused-silica fiber with energy-decay rate Γ/2π=361(

Load-bearing premise

The size of the claimed entanglement penalty depends on the assumed 1/|ω| force-noise spectrum continuing down to a hand-chosen cutoff at 1 Hz; the ring-down measurement constrains loss only at the 2.63 Hz resonance, not the low-frequency tail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any pendulum-based continuous-measurement entanglement experiment must account for the low-frequency color of structural damping, or it will overestimate the available entanglement margin.
  • A suspension gain of G_q≈2.5, from a 361-nHz linewidth, exceeds the modeled requirement of 1.49 and raises the projected E_N=0.1 threshold margin from 2.5 to 6.2.
  • This is the first reported sub-microhertz mechanical linewidth for a room-temperature milligram-scale mirror, providing hardware headroom for covariance-based verification.
  • The stepped-fiber design—a micron-scale waist with thick attachment sections—offers a practical route to reduce ω0Γ in milligram pendulums beyond the previous monolithic approach.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The penalty estimate hinges on the hand-chosen cutoff ω_c/2π=1 Hz; if the actual structural-noise spectrum flattens at higher frequencies, the 49.2% penalty and G_req=1.49 would shrink, so direct low-frequency noise spectroscopy would sharpen the quantitative claim.
  • Improving homodyne detection efficiency from 0.9 toward 1 would lower the required gain (the penalty is 33.7% at ideal detection), making detection optimization and suspension improvements complementary routes to entanglement.
  • The same stepped-fiber fabrication could be extended to other milligram-scale torsion or pendulum sensors, potentially approaching Q~10^8 if the upper-attachment loss is reduced, which would further increase the entanglement margin.
  • The rank-one broadening along the anti-squeezed quadrature suggests that feedback or controller designs that reshape the estimation filter at low frequencies might mitigate the structural-color penalty without additional suspension improvements.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies the effect of the 1/f force-noise spectrum of structural damping on the conditional entanglement of two suspended mirrors in a closed-loop optomechanical interferometer. Using a finite-cavity state-space model with Ornstein–Uhlenbeck representations of the colored bath, the authors find that, at a detection efficiency η=0.9, the low-frequency tail raises the critical cooperativity for E_N=0.1 by 49.2%, corresponding to a required suspension gain G_req=1.49. They then report a 7-mg pendulum on a stepped fused-silica fiber with Γ/2π=361(39) nHz at ω0/2π=2.63 Hz, i.e., Q=7.3(8)×10^6, and infer G_q≈2.5 relative to the previous monolithic device, exceeding the requirement and raising projected E_N=0.1 threshold margins from 2.5 to 6.2.

Significance. If correct, the result is significant in two ways. It identifies a previously unquantified colored-noise penalty for continuous-measurement entanglement of suspended mirrors, and it demonstrates a room-temperature milligram-scale mirror with a sub-microhertz mechanical linewidth, a record for this class of devices. The theoretical calculation is carefully executed: the OU approximation is checked for N-convergence (40→48 and 48→64 changes below 8×10^-5), the closed-loop covariance agrees with an open-loop estimator to 1.2×10^-10, and the arithmetic is reproducible from the stated numbers. The ring-down analysis uses about 516 h of data with a jackknife uncertainty, and the raw data are made openly available on Zenodo. The experimental suspension result stands on its own as a technical achievement.

major comments (2)
  1. [Eq. (1) and End Matter, Eq. (15)] The penalty computation uses a regularized structural spectrum with a low-frequency cutoff ω_c/2π=1 Hz (Eq. (1)), and the excess-noise integral in Eq. (15) scales as asinh(ω_b/ω_c) with ω_b/2π=30 Hz. The reported 49.2% penalty (and therefore G_req=1.49) is sensitive to this cutoff: lowering ω_c/2π to 0.1 Hz changes asinh(30)≈4.09 to asinh(300)≈6.40, increasing the penalty by roughly a factor of 1.56 and raising G_req to ~1.77; at ω_c/2π=10^-2 Hz the penalty approximately doubles and G_req exceeds 2.0, approaching the measured G_q≈2.5 at still lower cutoffs. The ring-down at 2.63 Hz is a single-frequency energy-decay measurement and provides no constraint on the force-noise spectrum below 1 Hz. Since the central 'exceeds requirement' claim uses G_req=1.49, the margin of ~1.7 is not robust unless ω_c is physically justified or a sensitivity scan is supplied. Please provide G_req as a funct
  2. [Fig. 1(b) and text near Eq. (3)] The requirement G_req=1.49 is evaluated for a detection efficiency η=0.9, which is an assumed parameter of the future interferometer rather than a measured quantity of the present suspension. The penalty increases as η decreases (Fig. 1(b)), so the headline 'exceeding the requirement' is conditional on this assumption. The paper should state the range of η over which G_q≈2.5 exceeds G_req (or provide the threshold η_crit), and in the abstract/conclusions make clear that the requirement is for the assumed 10% detection loss. This would prevent the margin from being over-read.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Fig. 1(b)] The vertical-axis label 'Increase in crit q [\%]' should be more explicit, e.g., 'Increase in critical cooperativity C_q [%]' or 'Increase in C_q,crit [%]'.
  2. [End Matter, Eq. (15)] The notation 'asinh' is acceptable, but consider defining it as arsinh or sinh^{-1} to avoid any ambiguity, especially in a journal with mixed readership.
  3. [Residual loss and further margin] The sentence taking Q_mat=1.2×10^4 'as measured from the yaw mode of the previous 1-µm-diameter fibers [26]' would benefit from a brief explanation of why the yaw-mode loss angle is representative of the pendulum-mode loss angle of the same fiber.
  4. [Table I] The numerical coincidence that ω_H/2π=30 Hz equals ω_b/2π=30 Hz is easy to misread as a dependence. The text already notes independence, but a sentence near Table I would help.
  5. [Nanohertz ring-down and penalty margin] It would be useful to propagate the Γ uncertainty to G_q explicitly. With Γ=361(39) nHz, G_q≈2.5 has a relative uncertainty of about 11%, so the margin over 1.49 is roughly 4σ; stating this would strengthen the claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the entanglement penalty is a model output from explicitly stated spectral assumptions, and the measured suspension gain rests on an independent ring-down measurement.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained rather than circular. The structural-noise penalty is computed from an explicit input spectrum, Eq. (1): "S_th_FF,σ(ω;ω_c) = S_th_FF,σ(ω_σ_m) sqrt((ω_σ_m^2+ω_c^2)/(ω^2+ω_c^2))", with ω_c/2π=1 Hz chosen as a low-frequency regularization scale. This is an assumed model, not a quantity fitted to the later experimental result, and the resulting 49.2% penalty in Fig. 1(b) and G_req=1.49 in Eq. (3) are direct outputs of the stated closed-loop calculation. The sensitivity of the penalty integral, Eq. (15), to the unmeasured cutoff ω_c is a robustness/correctness concern, not circularity; the paper does not claim to have derived ω_c empirically. The experimental leg is independent: Γ/2π=361(39) nHz is obtained from a free ring-down fit, and the suspension gain is G_q = ω0,mono Γ_mono/(ω0,step Γ_step) ≃ 2.5, using the measured Γ and prior-device parameters from Ref. [26]. No parameter is adjusted to make G_q exceed G_req. The self-citations to Refs. [25] and [28] for the OU-bath construction are not load-bearing because the End Matter supplies the full state-space equations, the quadrature construction, and convergence checks; the standard OU representation is also cited to Ref. [27]. Thus no step reduces to its own input or to an unverified self-citation, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation ships with several modeling dials; the load-bearing ones are the 1-Hz regularization of the 1/f spectrum and the 90% detection efficiency, neither of which is measured or given a sensitivity analysis in this paper. The experimental measurement itself is direct and archived. The idealized dilution benchmark (Eqs. 5–7) is not load-bearing but is unverifiable as printed. No new physical entities are introduced: the OU auxiliaries are a computational embedding of the 1/f spectrum.

free parameters (5)
  • ω_c — low-frequency regularization of the 1/f structural spectrum = 2π×1 Hz
    Eq. (1). The penalty integral Eq. (15) scales as asinh(ω_b/ω_c), so the headline 49.2% and G_req = 1.49 depend on this hand-chosen scale. No physical justification or sensitivity analysis is given.
  • η — homodyne detection efficiency = 0.9
    G_req = 1.49 is evaluated at (δ−, η) = (0.2, 0.9); the penalty is 33.7% at η = 1, so the requirement is η-dependent. The actual η of the planned experiment is not reported or measured here.
  • ζ = κ−/κ+ — cavity linewidth ratio = 3
    Assumed two-mode interferometer parameter (Table I) at which the penalty is computed; no variation scan is reported.
  • Closed-loop operating point (δ−, ω_H, ω_L, g_fb) = δ− = 0.2; ω_H/2π = 30 Hz; ω_L/2π = 10 kHz; g_fb per Table I
    Controller and detuning design choices. The paper asserts weak penalty dependence on δ− near 0.2 but shows no scan; the equal numerical values of ω_b and ω_H are addressed in the End Matter.
  • E_N benchmark level = 0.1
    Convention chosen as 'representative finite-entanglement benchmark'; G_req at the PPT boundary is 1.40, so the headline requirement is benchmark-dependent.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Structural damping: frequency-independent loss angle gives S_FF(ω) ∝ 1/|ω|, regularized at ω_c (Eq. 1)
    Taken from refs. [15–18]; the ring-down constrains loss only at ω0 = 2.63 Hz, so the sub-resonance 1/f shape that drives the penalty is assumed, not measured here.
  • domain assumption No independent actuator noise in the feedback loop ('No independent actuator noise is assumed')
    End Matter, state-space model paragraph. Actuator noise would raise the required C_q; its exclusion is optimistic and untested.
  • domain assumption Monolithic-device benchmark (ω0/2π = 2.2 Hz, Q = 2.0×10^6) from ref. [26]
    Prior self-authored measurement used to define G_q; quoted without re-verification here.
  • domain assumption C_q ∝ (ω0Γ)^−1 at fixed mass, temperature, radiation-pressure spectrum, and reference frequency
    Stated in the 'Entanglement penalty' section; standard structural-damping fluctuation–dissipation scaling converting the ring-down result into a suspension gain.
  • standard math Markovian input-output cavity model, Gaussian states, Kalman-filter optimality, PPT/log-negativity criterion (Eqs. 8–17)
    Standard optomechanics and continuous-variable entanglement formalism; asserted without derivation but textbook-grade.
  • domain assumption Dilution factor formula (Eq. 5) and surface-loss model (Eq. 6)
    Used only for the idealized Q_ideal benchmark; Eq. (5) is garbled as printed and could not be numerically reproduced with the stated waist parameters using standard dilution formulas.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Nanohertz Pendulum toward Macroscopic Entanglement under Structural Damping." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CQVTZPBX

@misc{pith2026260802462,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Nanohertz Pendulum toward Macroscopic Entanglement under Structural Damping},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CQVTZPBX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02462}
}
abstract

Pendulums are attractive for macroscopic quantum control because gravity dilution reduces mechanical loss, while the $1/f$ force-noise spectrum associated with structural damping allows nearly lossless trapping to suppress the thermal noise sampled at an upward-shifted resonance. The same $1/f$ spectrum, however, produces a low-frequency tail that penalizes entanglement. With $10\%$ detection loss, we find that this tail raises the required back-action-to-thermal force-noise ratio by about $50\%$, corresponding to a required suspension gain $G_{\rm req}=1.49$. To overcome this structural-noise penalty, we realize a $7$-mg pendulum suspended by a stepped fused-silica fiber, with an energy-decay rate $\Gamma/2\pi=361(39)$ nHz ($Q\equiv\omega_0/\Gamma=7.3(8)\times10^6$) at $\omega_0/2\pi=2.63$ Hz. The reduction in $\omega_0\Gamma$ yields a measured gain $G_q\simeq2.5$ relative to the previous monolithic device, exceeding the requirement.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02462 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Modeled entanglement cost and measured suspension gain. (a) Reference and regularized structural baths matched [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Diameter profile of the stepped fused-silica fiber. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009)

    2009

  2. [2]

    Pezz` e, A

    L. Pezz` e, A. Smerzi, M. K. Oberthaler, R. Schmied, and P. Treutlein, Quantum metrology with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys.90, 035005 (2018)

    2018

  3. [3]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroˇ s, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn, Spin entanglement wit- ness for quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240401 (2017)

    2017

  4. [4]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Gravitationally induced en- tanglement between two massive particles is sufficient ev- idence of quantum effects in gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 240402 (2017)

    2017

  5. [5]

    D. Miki, N. Matsumoto, A. Matsumura, T. Shichijo, Y. Sugiyama, K. Yamamoto, and N. Yamamoto, Gen- erating quantum entanglement between macroscopic ob- jects with continuous measurement and feedback control, Phys. Rev. A107, 032410 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    M¨ uller-Ebhardt, H

    H. M¨ uller-Ebhardt, H. Rehbein, R. Schnabel, K. Danz- mann, and Y. Chen, Entanglement of macroscopic test masses and the standard quantum limit in laser interfer- ometry, Phys. Rev. Lett.100, 013601 (2008)

    2008

  7. [7]

    H. Yang, H. Miao, D.-S. Lee, B. Helou, and Y. Chen, Macroscopic quantum mechanics in a classical spacetime, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 170401 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Y. Liu, H. Miao, Y. Chen, and Y. Ma, Semiclassi- cal gravity phenomenology under the causal-conditional quantum measurement prescription, Phys. Rev. D107, 024004 (2023)

    2023

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    D. Miki, A. Matsumura, and K. Yamamoto, Quantum signature of gravity in optomechanical systems with con- ditional measurement, Phys. Rev. D109, 064090 (2024)

    2024

  2. [10]

    D. Miki, Y. Kaku, Y. Liu, Y. Ma, and Y. Chen, Role of quantum measurements when testing the quantum na- ture of gravity, Phys. Rev. D111, 104084 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi, E. Damsk¨ agg, J.-M. Pirkkalainen, M. Asjad, A. A. Clerk, F. Massel, M. J. Woolley, and M. A. Sillanp¨ a¨ a, Stabilized entangle- ment of massive mechanical oscillators, Nature556, 478 (2018). 5

    2018

  4. [12]

    Aspelmeyer, T

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

    2014

  5. [13]

    Cagnoli, J

    G. Cagnoli, J. Hough, D. DeBra, M. M. Fejer, E. Gustafson, S. Rowan, and V. Mitrofanov, Damping dilution factor for a pendulum in an interferometric grav- itational waves detector, Phys. Lett. A272, 39 (2000)

    2000

  6. [14]

    Y. L. Huang and P. R. Saulson, Dissipation mechanisms in pendulums and their implications for gravitational wave interferometers, Review of Scientific Instruments 69, 544 (1998)

    1998

  7. [15]

    A. R. Neben, T. P. Bodiya, C. Wipf, E. Oelker, T. Cor- bitt, and N. Mavalvala, Structural thermal noise in gram- scale mirror oscillators, New Journal of Physics14, 115008 (2012)

    2012

  8. [16]

    P. R. Saulson, Thermal noise in mechanical experiments, Phys. Rev. D42, 2437 (1990)

    1990

  9. [17]

    G. I. Gonz´ alez and P. R. Saulson, Brownian motion of a mass suspended by an anelastic wire, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America96, 207 (1994)

    1994

  10. [18]

    S. A. Fedorov, V. Sudhir, R. Schilling, H. Sch¨ utz, D. J. Wilson, and T. J. Kippenberg, Evidence for structural damping in a high-stress silicon nitride nanobeam and its implications for quantum optomechanics, Physics Letters A382, 2251 (2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    Corbitt, C

    T. Corbitt, C. Wipf, T. Bodiya, D. Ottaway, D. Sigg, N. Smith, S. Whitcomb, and N. Mavalvala, Optical di- lution and feedback cooling of a gram-scale oscillator to 6.9 mk, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 160801 (2007)

    2007

  12. [20]

    K.-K. Ni, R. Norte, D. J. Wilson, J. D. Hood, D. E. Chang, O. Painter, and H. J. Kimble, Enhancement of mechanicalqfactors by optical trapping, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 214302 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Matsumoto, S

    N. Matsumoto, S. B. Cata˜ no Lopez, M. Sugawara, S. Suzuki, N. Abe, K. Komori, Y. Michimura, Y. Aso, and K. Edamatsu, Demonstration of displacement sens- ing of a mg-scale pendulum for mm- and mg-scale gravity measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 071101 (2019)

    2019

  14. [22]

    Whittleet al., Approaching the motional ground state of a 10 kg object, Science372, 1333 (2021)

    C. Whittleet al., Approaching the motional ground state of a 10 kg object, Science372, 1333 (2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    C. Meng, G. A. Brawley, S. Khademi, E. M. Bridge, J. S. Bennett, and W. P. Bowen, Measurement-based prepa- ration of multimode mechanical states, Science Advances 8, eabm7585 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Direkci, K

    S. Direkci, K. Winkler, C. Gut, K. Hammerer, M. As- pelmeyer, and Y. Chen, Macroscopic quantum entangle- ment between an optomechanical cavity and a continuous field in presence of non-markovian noise, Phys. Rev. Re- search6, 013175 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Sakai and N

    K. Sakai and N. Matsumoto, Unbiased estimation of con- ditional covariance for quantum optomechanics (2026), arXiv:2607.06431 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  18. [26]

    S. B. Cata˜ no Lopez, J. G. Santiago-Condori, K. Edamatsu, and N. Matsumoto, High-qmilligram- scale monolithic pendulum for quantum-limited gravity measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 221102 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    G. E. Uhlenbeck and L. S. Ornstein, On the theory of the brownian motion, Phys. Rev.36, 823 (1930)

    1930

  20. [28]

    Matsumoto, K

    N. Matsumoto, K. Sakai, K. Hatakeyama, K. Izumi, D. Miki, S. Iso, A. Matsumura, and K. Yamamoto, Space- based cm/kg-scale laser interferometer for quantum grav- ity (2025), arXiv:2507.12899 [gr-qc]

    2025

  21. [29]

    L.-M. Duan, G. Giedke, J. I. Cirac, and P. Zoller, Insep- arability criterion for continuous variable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2722 (2000)

    2000

  22. [30]

    Simon, Peres–horodecki separability criterion for con- tinuous variable systems, Phys

    R. Simon, Peres–horodecki separability criterion for con- tinuous variable systems, Phys. Rev. Lett.84, 2726 (2000)

    2000

  23. [31]

    A. M. Gretarsson and G. M. Harry, Losses in fused silica suspension fibers for gravitational wave detectors, Re- view of Scientific Instruments72, 4279 (2001)

    2001

  24. [32]

    S. D. Penn, A. Ageev, D. Busby, G. M. Harry, A. M. Gretarsson, K. Numata, and P. Willems, Frequency and surface dependence of the mechanical loss in fused silica, Physics Letters A352, 3 (2006)

    2006

  25. [33]

    Nagai and T

    R. Nagai and T. Aoki, Ultra-low-loss tapered optical fibers with minimal lengths, Opt. Express22, 28427 (2014)

    2014

  26. [34]

    Birks and Y

    T. Birks and Y. Li, The shape of fiber tapers, Journal of Lightwave Technology10, 432 (1992)

    1992

  27. [35]

    Y. Leng, R. Li, X. Kong, H. Xie, D. Zheng, P. Yin, F. Xiong, T. Wu, C.-K. Duan, Y. Du, Z.-q. Yin, P. Huang, and J. Du, Mechanical dissipation below 1µhz with a cryogenic diamagnetic levitated micro-oscillator, Phys. Rev. Applied15, 024061 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    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, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 133602 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Cagnoli, L

    G. Cagnoli, L. Gammaitoni, J. Hough, J. Kovalik, S. McIntosh, M. Punturo, and S. Rowan, Very highq measurements on a fused silica monolithic pendulum for use in enhanced gravity wave detectors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 2442 (2000)

    2000

  30. [38]

    T. Yan, L. Prokhorov, J. Smetana, V. Boyer, D. Mar- tynov, Y. Liu, Y. Ma, and H. Miao, First result for testing semiclassical gravity effect with a torsion balance, Phys. Rev. D111, 082007 (2025)

    2025

  31. [39]

    C. E. Murphy, C. Jessup, T. Naderishahab, Y. Si- hag, M. M. Fields, L. R. Werneck, Z. B. Etienne, and B. D’Urso, Ultra-low damping of the translational motion of a composite graphite rod in a magneto-gravitational trap, Appl. Phys. Lett.128, 041103 (2026)

    2026

  32. [40]

    Array´ as, J

    M. Array´ as, J. L. Trueba, C. Uriarte, J. Clothier, C. C. E. Elmy, R. Schanen, D. E. Zmeev, and ˇS. Midlik, A super- conducting levitating oscillator with<1µhz resonance linewidth (2026), arXiv:2605.09632 [quant-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Komori, Y

    K. Komori, Y. Enomoto, C. P. Ooi, Y. Miyazaki, N. Matsumoto, V. Sudhir, Y. Michimura, and M. Ando, Attonewton-meter torque sensing with a macroscopic optomechanical torsion pendulum, Phys. Rev. A101, 011802 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Agafonova, P

    S. Agafonova, P. Rossell´ o, M. Mekonnen, and O. Hosten, One-milligram torsional pendulum toward experiments at the quantum-gravity interface, Commun. Phys.9, 80 (2026)

    2026

  35. [43]

    H. Liu, R. Liu, R. Li, L. Yang, Y. Liu, and Q. Li, Micrometer-diameter high-Q silica fiber from a laser- based pulling machine for a milligram-scale torsion pen- dulum, Phys. Rev. Applied25, 034028 (2026)

    2026

  36. [44]

    Guan, Y.-B

    S.-G. Guan, Y.-B. Cheng, J. Sun, Z.-L. Duan, and J.- X. Le, All-optically operated atto-newton force sens- ing with a centimeter-milligram-scale torsion pendulum, Phys. Rev. Lett.136, 063603 (2026)

    2026

  37. [45]

    Sawada and N

    A. Sawada and N. Matsumoto, Ring-down data for a 7- mg stepped fused-silica pendulum with a nanohertz me- chanical linewidth, Zenodo (2026), version 1.0. 6 Closed-loop conditional-covariance calculation Linear state-space model.—For each nor- mal modeσ, the augmented Markov st...

    2026

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.