Quantum Back Action Evasion with Reservoir Engineering

James W. Gardner; Kentaro Somiya; Yanbei Chen; Yohei Nishino

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 43 references

Quantum Back Action Evasion with Reservoir Engineering

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Reservoir engineering can reproduce a double-pass speed meter using only reciprocal interactions, and the resulting force sensitivity falls below the standard quantum limit.

desk verdict Reservoir-engineering speed meter with feedforward is new and the algebra is consistent, but the non-causal Wiener filters leave the claimed sub-SQL sensitivity unsupported for real-time operation. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.01013 v1 pith:IU4V5GQH submitted 2025-05-02 quant-ph

Yohei Nishino , James W. Gardner , Yanbei Chen , Kentaro Somiya This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-ph

keywords cavityoptomechanicsback-actionevasionspeedmeterreservoirengineeringstandardquantumlimitnondemolitionnonreciprocalinteractionfeedforwardfiltering

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 claims that a quantum speed meter—an instrument that measures the velocity of a free mass rather than its position—can be assembled from ordinary reciprocal cavity couplings, without circulators or ring-cavity infrastructure. The mechanism adds a strongly damped auxiliary optical mode that acts as an engineered reservoir; with the correct coupling phase, the reservoir makes light effectively flow one way between two optical modes, reproducing the physics of a double-pass speed meter. A homodyne readout with feedforward from the auxiliary outputs removes the extra loop noise the reciprocal construction generates, leaving a force-noise spectrum that at low frequency is a constant $1/(2\gamma)$ times the standard quantum limit. If correct, this means increasing the pump power (or injecting squeezed light into one mode) pushes the noise floor below the standard quantum limit without bound, giving a practical route to quantum back-action evasion in cavity optomechanics.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the engineered reservoir: a strongly damped auxiliary cavity mode C that is coupled to both optical modes A and B by beam-splitter interactions. In the Markovian limit where C's damping is the fastest rate, C is adiabatically eliminated and, with the choice $J = i\Gamma$, it converts the two reciprocal A–B couplings into a single directional flow from A to B. This directional flow is what creates the two opposite-sign interactions with the mechanical mass that define a speed meter. The second piece of machinery is the feedforward readout: homodyning the A and C output fields at fixed angles and subtracting them from the B output using the filters $g_1$ and $g_2$ cancels the loop noise that the reciprocal construction would otherwise leave in the spectrum.

What would settle it

A direct check would be to compute the poles of the two feedforward filters $g_1$ and $g_2$ from Eqs. (A3)–(A4), or to simulate the full three-cavity system without adiabatic elimination: if any pole lies in the right half-plane, or if the filtered closed loop is unstable, the derived $1/(2\gamma)$ floor cannot be reached in real time. A tabletop experiment could also measure the low-frequency force noise at the optimal homodyne angle and look for the predicted $1/\gamma$ dependence.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that reservoir engineering can reproduce the double-pass speed meter using only reciprocal interactions. Two optical modes A and B both couple to a mechanical free mass, with opposite radiation-pressure signs, while a strongly damped auxiliary mode C couples to both A and B through beam-splitter Hamiltonians. When the coherent coupling is chosen as $J = i\Gamma$, adiabatic elimination of C turns the two reciprocal couplings into one directional flow from A to B, satisfying the two requirements of a speed meter: two coherent interactions with the test mass and opposite signs. The authors derive the full input–output relation, then cancel the resulting loop noise by homodyning the A and C outputs at fixed angles and subtracting them from the B output with optimal feedforward filters, yielding the force spectral density $S_F^{\mathrm{SM}}/S_F^{\mathrm{SQL}} = \frac{1}{2}\left[\frac{(1+\omega^2)^2}{\gamma} + \gamma \omega^4(2+\omega^2)\right]$. At $\omega \to 0$ this ratio is $1/(2\gamma)$, so for $\gamma > 1/2$ the speed meter surpasses the standard quantum limit and the noise floor falls as the pump power grows.

Load-bearing premise

The predicted low-frequency sensitivity depends on two frequency-dependent feedforward filters that contain $1/\omega$ terms; the paper does not prove that these filters are causal and stable, so a real-time implementation may not achieve the claimed $1/(2\gamma)$ noise floor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

With $\gamma > 1/2$, the derived spectrum puts the low-frequency force noise below the standard quantum limit, and the floor scales as $1/\gamma$, so turning up the pump power (or injecting squeezed light into mode A) improves sensitivity without a SQL bound.
Because the scheme needs only reciprocal interactions, it can be realized in a single optical cavity containing a nonlinear crystal pumped at three frequencies, avoiding the spatial or polarization infrastructure of earlier speed meters.
The speed meter beats a position meter with the same bandwidth and a doubled coupling strength at all frequencies $\omega < 1$, pointing to a broad low-frequency sensing advantage.
The feedforward stage uses only fixed homodyne angles and the outputs of modes A and C, so no additional filter cavities are required for the noise cancellation.

Reading between the lines

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

The paper does not address whether the feedforward filters $g_1$ and $g_2$ are causal and stable; a natural extension is to test how closely finite-order realizable filters can approximate them and what sensitivity penalty that costs.
The same reservoir-engineering trick could be applied to other quantum nondemolition observables or to directional routing between more than two optical modes, since the mechanism only needs a damped intermediary and an interference phase.
Because the advantage grows with the pump parameter $\gamma$, the practical ceiling will be set by optical loss and by non-Markovian corrections when the reservoir's damping is finite; quantifying that tradeoff is a testable extension the authors list as future work.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear Colleague,

You should know this paper has a genuinely new idea but a load-bearing gap: the feedforward filters that make Eq. (19) work are non-causal as written, so the sub-SQL sensitivity is not achieved in real time unless the authors provide a causal version or explicitly say the processing is offline.

The new thing here is the combination of reservoir engineering à la Metelmann-Clerk with a double-pass speed meter and feedforward from two auxiliary outputs. That specific combination is not in the cited literature, and the algebra checks out: Eq. (19) does follow from Eq. (18) once the homodyne projection is included, and the low-frequency limit 1/(2γ) is right. The authors are also honest about the idealizations – they explicitly defer optical losses and non-Markovian effects to future work.

The soft spot is the realizability of the Wiener filters. g1 and g2 in Appendix A both scale as 1/ω at low frequency, which means their impulse responses have infinite anti-causal support. You cannot implement that in a real-time feedforward loop with a finite delay. The paper doesn't mention offline processing or a causal spectral-factorized approximation with a bounded error. Since the claim of sub-SQL performance rests on exact cancellation of the loop noise, this is a real gap rather than a nitpick. The position-meter comparison in Eq. (20) is fine, and the Michelson implementation sketch is plausible, but the missing causality discussion is the thing a referee should pin down.

Also minor: the transfer matrices in Appendix A are stated without derivation, and the sign in Eq. (17) for the optimal homodyne angle looks suspicious. These are secondary.

If the authors can show that the cancellation is achievable in real time with a causal filter, or that offline processing is acceptable for the intended application, this is a solid contribution to the speed-meter literature. As it stands, it's a clever proposal with an incomplete control-theoretic detail.

I'd send it to peer review – the core algebra is worth checking, and the causality issue is exactly what referees are for. If you work on cavity optomechanics or GW detector concepts, you'll want this on your radar.

Best, [signature]

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes a back-action-evading force sensor for a free mass in which an engineered reservoir realizes an effective nonreciprocal coupling between two optical modes A and B, producing a speed-meter-type interaction from reciprocal beam-splitter couplings plus conditional feedforward. Section II recalls the velocity-measurement principle; Section III presents the Langevin equations and the frequency-domain input-output relation; Section IV gives the filtered output (Eq. 18) and the force-noise ratio (Eq. 19), which at low frequency approaches 1/(2γ) and is below the SQL for γ>1/2; Section V sketches a Michelson-type implementation. Appendix A supplies the full multi-input, multi-output relations and the Wiener filters, and Appendix B derives the position-meter comparison.

Significance. If the derivation is correct, the scheme is an appealing alternative to Sagnac-type and polarization-based speed meters because it uses only reciprocal interactions and can be implemented with three cavity modes plus homodyne detection and feedforward. The paper is clearly organized, identifies the loop-noise problem explicitly, and provides a concrete interferometer sketch, all of which are useful. However, the quantitative claims are not yet fully supported: the central equations (18) and (19) disagree under the stated noise normalization, and the feedforward filters in Appendix A are non-causal, so the exact low-frequency sensitivity is not established for a real-time measurement. No code or machine-checked derivation is provided, which places additional weight on the Appendix A algebra.

major comments (3)

[Section IV, Eqs. (18)-(19)] I cannot reproduce Eq. (19) from Eq. (18) under the spectral-density convention of Eqs. (15)-(16). With vacuum inputs (S_in = 1/2), the four surviving noise coefficients in Eq. (18) give S_F/S_F^SQL = [(1+ω^2)^2 + γ^2 ω^4 (ω^2+2)^2]/(4γ); if one instead takes S_in = 1, the denominator becomes 2γ. Eq. (19) reads (1/2)[(1+ω^2)^2/γ + γ ω^4 (2+ω^2)], which differs from both expressions: the prefactor is off by a factor of two (low-frequency limit 1/(4γ) instead of 1/(2γ) in the S_in = 1/2 case) and the radiation-pressure term has (2+ω^2) instead of (2+ω^2)^2. Since Eq. (19) and Fig. 3 are the quantitative basis for the sub-SQL claim, please correct Eq. (18) or Eq. (19) and state the noise normalization explicitly.
[Appendix A, Eqs. (A3)-(A5)] The Wiener filters g1 and g2 in Eqs. (A3)-(A4) each have a pole at ω=0; at low frequency g1 ~ iγ/[sqrt(1+γ^2) ω] and g2 ~ γ/[sqrt(1+γ^2) ω]. A 1/ω transfer function has an impulse response proportional to sign(t), with infinite support on t<0, so the exact filtering in Eq. (A5) cannot be implemented as real-time feedforward of the homodyne currents a2,out and c1,out. The manuscript does not state that the processing is offline and does not provide a causal spectral-factorized filter or a finite-time approximation with an error bound. Because Eq. (18) relies on exact cancellation of the loop noise, the low-frequency floor of Eq. (19) is not established for a real-time measurement; at minimum the causality assumption must be stated and its effect on the sensitivity quantified.
[Appendix A, Eqs. (A1)-(A2)] The full MIMO input-output relations (A1) and (A2), and the filter choices (A3)-(A4), are asserted without derivation in Appendix A. These equations are the only route from the Langevin equations (4) to the central filtered output (18), so the derivation should be provided (or a detailed supplementary note included), with the cancellation pattern in Eq. (A5) shown explicitly. Without this, the central result cannot be independently verified.

minor comments (4)

[Section IV, Eq. (20)] The sentence following Eq. (20) states that the low-frequency noise scales as 4γ/ω^2, but the displayed Eq. (20) gives 2γ/ω^2 in the same limit; please reconcile this with the noise normalization chosen after correcting the major issue above.
[Appendix B, Eq. (B2)] The symbol γ is used both as the dimensionless pump parameter in Eq. (11) and as a dimensional amplitude decay rate in Eq. (B2); please use different symbols or state the mapping between the two contexts.
[Section IV, Eq. (17)] The optimal homodyne angle φ_opt = tan^{-1} γ is stated without derivation; a short derivation or an explicit reference would help readers verify how the off-diagonal term in D_d is cancelled.
[Section V, Fig. 3] Adding the low-frequency asymptotes of the corrected speed-meter and position-meter curves to Fig. 3 would make the comparison much easier to read and would directly display the claimed sub-SQL behavior.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the sub-SQL sensitivity follows from the derived Langevin input-output relations; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The central sensitivity formula, Eq. (19), is obtained by solving the linearized Langevin equations (4) in the frequency domain, applying the stated input-output relations, and then using the Wiener-filter cancellation defined in Eqs. (A3)-(A5). The only optimization in the derivation is the homodyne angle (17), which is chosen to cancel a specific off-diagonal term in Eq. (7); this is a design choice made from the model, not a parameter fitted to reproduce the target sensitivity. The reservoir-engineering input is attributed to the independent work Metelmann and Clerk [35], and the nonreciprocal condition J = iGamma is imposed and then used explicitly in the subsequent algebra. The self-citations [38,43] supply related speed-meter and feedforward methods, but the load-bearing filter expressions and the resulting sensitivity are derived in this paper, and the cited works are not used as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the derivation. No known speed-meter result is merely renamed: the paper's contribution is the explicit construction of the three-mode reciprocal Hamiltonian and the derivation of its noise spectral density. The non-causal 1/omega structure of the Wiener filters g1 and g2 in Eqs. (A3)-(A4) is a real realizability concern for real-time feedforward, and the paper does not address causality or spectral factorization; however, that is a physical-implementation gap rather than a circularity, because Eq. (19) is still a genuine algebraic consequence of the stated idealized model. Therefore no step in the derivation reduces by construction to its own inputs, and the paper is not circular.

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

No parameter is fitted to data. The central sensitivity result follows from the stated Hamiltonian and linearized Langevin equations, with tunable pump power entering through gamma; the main extra assumptions are Markovian elimination, free-mass response, ideal detection, and realizability of the feedforward filters.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Markovian reservoir elimination: the reservoir mode C is strongly damped, with kappa_c much larger than kappa, Gamma, and J, so C is adiabatically eliminated and the effective A-B coupling is unidirectional.
Invoked in Sec. III before Eq. (4); the transfer matrices (6)-(10) depend on this elimination.
domain assumption Free-mass approximation: the mechanical resonance frequency omega_m is taken to zero (omega_m -> 0).
Used before Eq. (6) to obtain the speed meter response; the sensitivity formula (19) assumes a free test mass.
standard math Linearized quantum Langevin equations in the two-photon quadrature formalism.
The derivation uses standard input-output theory and the Schumaker-Caves formalism cited as Refs. [39,40].
domain assumption Ideal detection: unit-efficiency homodyne detection and no optical losses.
The authors state in Sec. V that optical losses are not included; the feedforward cancellation assumes the auxiliary outputs are measured perfectly.
domain assumption Feedforward filters g1 and g2 are realizable in practice (causal and stable).
The cancellation of loop noise in Appendix A assumes the Wiener filters in Eqs. (A3)-(A4) can be applied; their causality is never discussed.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Back Action Evasion with Reservoir Engineering." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IU4V5GQH

@misc{pith2026250501013,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Back Action Evasion with Reservoir Engineering},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IU4V5GQH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.01013}
}

read the original abstract

We propose a back-action evading scheme for a free mass that combines reservoir engineering with velocity measurement. The underlying principle follows the double-pass-type speed meter, which measures the mirror's velocity using a nonreciprocal interaction. In our method, the nonreciprocal coupling is realized through reservoir engineering, following the recipe proposed in [Phys. Rev. X 5, 021025]. We show that reservoir engineering can reproduce the double-pass speed meter with optimal feedforward, using only reciprocal interactions. The resulting force sensitivity surpasses the standard quantum limit, providing an alternative route to quantum back-action evasion in cavity optomechanical systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.01013 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. (a) Mode diagram of the speed meter with an engi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Force spectral densities for the speed meter (red solid) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. Mode diagram for the full input-output relation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 26 canonical work pages

[1]

Aspelmeyer, T

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

2014
[2]

P. F. Cohadon, A. Heidmann, and M. Pinard, Cooling of a mirror by radiation pressure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3174 (1999)

work page 1999
[3]

Vitali, S

D. Vitali, S. Gigan, A. Ferreira, H. R. B¨ ohm, P. Tombesi, A. Guerreiro, V. Vedral, A. Zeilinger, and M. As- pelmeyer, Optomechanical entanglement between a mov- able mirror and a cavity field, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 030405 (2007)

2007
[4]

J. Chan, T. P. M. Alegre, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, J. T. Hill, A. Krause, S. Gr¨ oblacher, M. Aspelmeyer, and O. Painter, Laser cooling of a nanomechanical oscilla- tor into its quantum ground state, Nature 478, 89–92 (2011)

work page 2011
[5]

J. D. Teufel, T. Donner, D. Li, J. W. Harlow, M. S. Allman, K. Cicak, A. J. Sirois, J. D. Whittaker, K. W. Lehnert, and R. W. Simmonds, Sideband cooling of mi- cromechanical motion to the quantum ground state, Na- ture 475, 359–363 (2011)

work page 2011
[6]

Chen, Macroscopic quantum mechanics: theory and experimental concepts of optomechanics, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 46, 104001 (2013)

Y. Chen, Macroscopic quantum mechanics: theory and experimental concepts of optomechanics, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 46, 104001 (2013)

2013
[7]

T. A. Palomaki, J. D. Teufel, R. W. Simmonds, and K. W. Lehnert, Entangling mechanical mo- tion with microwave fields, Science 342, 710 (2013), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1244563

doi:10.1126/science.1244563 2013
[8]

A. H. Safavi-Naeini and O. Painter, Proposal for an op- tomechanical traveling wave phonon–photon translator, New Journal of Physics 13, 013017 (2011)

work page 2011

Show all 43 references

[9]

C. M. Caves, K. S. Thorne, R. W. P. Drever, V. D. Sandberg, and M. Zimmermann, On the measurement of a weak classical force coupled to a quantum-mechanical oscillator. i. issues of principle, Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 341 (1980)

1980
[10]

V. B. Braginsky, F. Y. Khalili, and K. S. Thorne, Quantum Measurement (1995)

1995
[11]

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
[12]

V. B. Braginskiˇi, Classical and Quantum Restrictions on the Detection of Weak Disturbances of a Macroscopic Os- cillator, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 26, 831 (1968)

1968
[13]

C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical radiation-pressure fluctuations in an interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 75 (1980)

1980
[14]

W. G. Unruh, in Quantum optics. Experimental gravity, and measurement theory (1983)

1983
[15]

C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interfer- ometer, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981)

1981
[16]

R. S. Bondurant and J. H. Shapiro, Squeezed states in phase-sensing interferometers, Phys. Rev. D 30, 2548 (1984)

1984
[17]

M. T. Jaekel and S. Reynaud, Quantum limits in inter- ferometric measurements, Europhysics Letters 13, 301 8 (1990)

1990
[18]

H. J. Kimble, Y. Levin, A. B. Matsko, K. S. Thorne, and S. P. Vyatchanin, Conversion of conventional gravitational-wave interferometers into quantum nonde- molition interferometers by modifying their input and/or output optics, Phys. Rev. D 65, 022002 (2001)

2001
[19]

Vyatchanin and E

S. Vyatchanin and E. Zubova, Quantum variation mea- surement of a force, Physics Letters A 201, 269 (1995)

1995
[20]

Julsgaard, A

B. Julsgaard, A. Kozhekin, and E. S. Polzik, Experimen- tal long-lived entanglement of two macroscopic objects, Nature 413, 400–403 (2001)

2001
[21]

Hammerer, M

K. Hammerer, M. Aspelmeyer, E. S. Polzik, and P. Zoller, Establishing einstein-poldosky-rosen channels between nanomechanics and atomic ensembles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 020501 (2009)

2009
[22]

M. J. Woolley and A. A. Clerk, Two-mode back-action- evading measurements in cavity optomechanics, Phys. Rev. A 87, 063846 (2013)

2013
[23]

Tsang and C

M. Tsang and C. M. Caves, Coherent quantum-noise can- cellation for optomechanical sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 123601 (2010)

2010
[24]

C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi, E. Damsk¨ agg, J.-M. Pirkkalainen, A. A. Clerk, M. J. Woolley, and M. A. Sillanp¨ a¨ a, Quantum backaction evading measurement of collective mechanical modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 140401 (2016)

2016
[25]

C. B. Møller, R. A. Thomas, G. Vasilakis, E. Zeuthen, Y. Tsaturyan, M. Balabas, K. Jensen, A. Schliesser, K. Hammerer, and E. S. Polzik, Quantum back-action- evading measurement of motion in a negative mass ref- erence frame, Nature 547, 191–195 (2017)

2017
[26]

F. Y. Khalili and E. S. Polzik, Overcoming the standard quantum limit in gravitational wave detectors using spin systems with a negative effective mass, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 031101 (2018)

2018
[27]

Buonanno and Y

A. Buonanno and Y. Chen, Signal recycled laser- interferometer gravitational-wave detectors as optical springs, Phys. Rev. D 65, 042001 (2002)

2002
[28]

V. B. Braginsky, Y. I. Vorontsov, and K. S. Thorne, Quantum nondemolition measurements, Science 209, 547 (1980), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.209.4456.547

1980 doi
[29]

V. B. Braginsky, M. L. Gorodetsky, F. Y. Khalili, and K. S. Thorne, Dual-resonator speed meter for a free test mass, Phys. Rev. D 61, 044002 (2000)

2000
[30]

Braginsky and F

V. Braginsky and F. Khalili, Gravitational wave antenna with qnd speed meter, Physics Letters A147, 251 (1990)

1990
[31]

S. L. Danilishin, E. Knyazev, N. V. Voronchev, F. Y. Khalili, C. Gr¨ af, S. Steinlechner, J.-S. Hennig, and S. Hild, A new quantum speed-meter interferometer: measuring speed to search for intermediate mass black holes, Light: Science & Applications 7, 11 (2018), arXiv:1702.01...

2018 arXiv
[32]

Weber, Evidence for discovery of gravitational radia- tion, Phys

J. Weber, Evidence for discovery of gravitational radia- tion, Phys. Rev. Lett. 22, 1320 (1969)

1969
[33]

P. R. Saulson, Fundamentals of interferometric gravitational wave detectors; 1st ed. (World Scientific, Singapore, 1994)

1994
[34]

B. S. Sathyaprakash and B. F. Schutz, Physics, astro- physics and cosmology with gravitational waves, Living Reviews in Relativity 12, 10.12942/lrr-2009-2 (2009)

2009 doi
[35]

Metelmann and A

A. Metelmann and A. A. Clerk, Nonreciprocal photon transmission and amplification via reservoir engineering, Phys. Rev. X 5, 021025 (2015)

2015
[36]

S. L. Danilishin and F. Y. Khalili, Quantum measure- ment theory in gravitational-wave detectors, Living Re- views in Relativity 15, 10.12942/lrr-2012-5 (2012)

2012 doi
[37]

Miao, Exploring macroscopic quantum mechanics in optomechanical devices, Springer Theses (2010)

H. Miao, Exploring macroscopic quantum mechanics in optomechanical devices, Springer Theses (2010)

2010
[38]

Nishino, J

Y. Nishino, J. W. Gardner, Y. Chen, and K. Somiya, Teleportation-based speed meter for precision measure- ment (2025), arXiv:2504.18111 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[39]

B. L. Schumaker and C. M. Caves, New formalism for two-photon quantum optics. ii. mathematical foundation and compact notation, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3093 (1985)

1985
[40]

C. M. Caves and B. L. Schumaker, New formalism for two-photon quantum optics. i. quadrature phases and squeezed states, Phys. Rev. A 31, 3068 (1985)

1985
[41]

Purdue and Y

P. Purdue and Y. Chen, Practical speed meter designs for quantum nondemolition gravitational-wave interfer- ometers, Phys. Rev. D 66, 122004 (2002)

2002
[42]

Chen, Sagnac interferometer as a speed-meter- type, quantum-nondemolition gravitational-wave detec- tor, Physical Review D 67, 10.1103/physrevd.67.122004 (2003)

Y. Chen, Sagnac interferometer as a speed-meter- type, quantum-nondemolition gravitational-wave detec- tor, Physical Review D 67, 10.1103/physrevd.67.122004 (2003)

2003 doi
[43]

Nishino, S

Y. Nishino, S. Danilishin, Y. Enomoto, and T. Zhang, Frequency-dependent squeezing for gravitational-wave detection through quantum teleportation, Phys. Rev. A 110, 022601 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Aspelmeyer, T

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

2014

[2] [2]

P. F. Cohadon, A. Heidmann, and M. Pinard, Cooling of a mirror by radiation pressure, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 3174 (1999)

work page 1999

[3] [3]

Vitali, S

D. Vitali, S. Gigan, A. Ferreira, H. R. B¨ ohm, P. Tombesi, A. Guerreiro, V. Vedral, A. Zeilinger, and M. As- pelmeyer, Optomechanical entanglement between a mov- able mirror and a cavity field, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 030405 (2007)

2007

[4] [4]

J. Chan, T. P. M. Alegre, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, J. T. Hill, A. Krause, S. Gr¨ oblacher, M. Aspelmeyer, and O. Painter, Laser cooling of a nanomechanical oscilla- tor into its quantum ground state, Nature 478, 89–92 (2011)

work page 2011

[5] [5]

J. D. Teufel, T. Donner, D. Li, J. W. Harlow, M. S. Allman, K. Cicak, A. J. Sirois, J. D. Whittaker, K. W. Lehnert, and R. W. Simmonds, Sideband cooling of mi- cromechanical motion to the quantum ground state, Na- ture 475, 359–363 (2011)

work page 2011

[6] [6]

Chen, Macroscopic quantum mechanics: theory and experimental concepts of optomechanics, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 46, 104001 (2013)

Y. Chen, Macroscopic quantum mechanics: theory and experimental concepts of optomechanics, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics 46, 104001 (2013)

2013

[7] [7]

T. A. Palomaki, J. D. Teufel, R. W. Simmonds, and K. W. Lehnert, Entangling mechanical mo- tion with microwave fields, Science 342, 710 (2013), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.1244563

doi:10.1126/science.1244563 2013

[8] [8]

A. H. Safavi-Naeini and O. Painter, Proposal for an op- tomechanical traveling wave phonon–photon translator, New Journal of Physics 13, 013017 (2011)

work page 2011