Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 37 references

The Radiation Pressure of Light: historical perspectives and the role of structured light

T0 review · 4 major / 8 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 Structured light exerts slightly less radiation pressure on a flat mirror than a plane wave of the same power and frequency, with the shortfall set by the beam's mode number.

desk verdict The core radiation-pressure reduction formula for structured light on a flat mirror is correct and modestly new, but the printed derivation has a sign error that blocks reproduction; the physics deserves peer review, not desk rejection. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18789 v1 pith:OXBHYB3L submitted 2025-04-26 physics.optics physics.hist-ph

Alexander C. Trowbridge , Ewan M. Wright , Kishan Dholakia This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.hist-ph
keywords RadiationpressureStructuredlightGouyphaseOrbitalangularmomentumHermite-GaussianmodesLaguerre-GaussianBeampropagationfactorSpecklemetrology
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 argues that a structured light beam pushes a flat mirror slightly less hard than a plane wave of identical power and frequency. The deficit is set by the total transverse mode number: $F_z/(2P/c)=1-(N+1)/(k^2w_0^2)$, so for a 1064 nm beam with a 0.1 mm waist each added Hermite–Gaussian index or unit of orbital angular momentum lowers the force by roughly 20 fN/W. The origin is traced to the Gouy phase, the extra phase accumulated by a focused mode relative to a plane wave. The paper proposes a speckle-based membrane measurement and argues that the effect is resolvable with current force metrology.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Gouy phase shift $\theta_G(z)=-(N+1)\arctan(z/z_0)$, whose spatial derivative reduces the average axial wavevector. The derivation uses the mode-number spot-size identity $\langle x^2+y^2\rangle=w^2(N+1)/2$, established for Hermite–Gaussian and Laguerre–Gaussian beams, to evaluate $\langle k_z\rangle=k-(N+1)/(2z_0)$ and then converts this to force via the two-photon momentum transfer $2\hbar\langle k_z\rangle$ per reflected photon.

What would settle it

Measure the axial force of a Laguerre–Gaussian beam on a flat mirror using a sensitive force sensor, comparing $\ell=0$, $\ell=1$, and $\ell=2$ beams of the same power, frequency, and waist $w_0=0.1$ mm. The paper predicts a deficit of $(2p+|\ell|+1)/k^2w_0^2$ relative to $2P/c$, about 19 fN/W per unit $|\ell|$ at 1064 nm; observing equal forces within sub-fN/W resolution, or no dependence on $\ell$ or $p$, would refute the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a monochromatic paraxial eigenmode with total mode number $N$ ($N=n+m$ for Hermite–Gaussian beams, $N=2p+|\ell|$ for Laguerre–Gaussian beams) incident on a perfectly reflecting flat mirror, the axial radiation pressure force is $F_z/(2P/c)=1-(N+1)/(k^2w_0^2)$, always slightly less than the plane-wave value $2P/c$. Equivalently, the deficit can be written as $-(1/4)M^2\theta^2$ using the beam propagation factor $M^2$ and the diffraction angle $\theta=w_0/z_0$. The reduction is attributed to the Gouy phase, whose mode-dependent $z$-derivative lowers the mean axial wavevector $\langle k_z\rangle$, so light with more transverse structure carries slightly less forward momentum per photon.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a flat mirror feels exactly twice the average forward paraxial momentum of the incident photons, with any additional force from the beam's longitudinal field components neglected—yet those neglected non-paraxial effects are of the same order, $1/(k^2w_0^2)$, as the predicted deficit.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Every higher-order transverse mode of a structured beam will exert measurably less axial force on a flat mirror than a plane wave of the same frequency and power.
  • The force deficit grows linearly with the total mode number, so increasing the orbital angular momentum $|\ell|$ or the radial index $p$ of a Laguerre–Gaussian beam increases the shortfall in proportion to $2p+|\ell|+1$.
  • Because the deficit scales with $M^2$ and the diffraction angle, a measurement of radiation pressure can serve as a force-based probe of beam quality for real, partly unknown beams.
  • The proposed integrating-sphere speckle membrane setup should resolve the predicted 20 fN/W-level effect, since picometre-level displacements have already been measured with similar configurations.
  • The alignment tolerance is tight: for a 632.8 nm beam with $w_0=0.1$ mm, the mirror must stay within roughly half an arcminute per unit mode number or the tiny force difference will be masked.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same Gouy-phase mechanism suggests that any paraxial structured beam, not only pure eigenmodes, carries an axial momentum deficit equal to the weighted average mode number, so the effect could be used as a mechanical measurement of beam structure.
  • If the deficit is real, the implied axial photon speed below $c$ for structured light might need to be accounted for in precision Doppler-cooling and optical-tweezer force calibrations where higher-order modes are involved.
  • A natural testable extension is to check whether non-diffracting beams such as Bessel beams, whose Gouy phase behavior is different, produce a force deficit that does not follow the simple $1/(k^2w_0^2)$ scaling.
  • The authors’ choice of the speckle-integrating-sphere membrane over levitated particles implicitly predicts that tight-focusing and spin–orbit coupling effects would contaminate the force measurement; testing that comparison directly would sharpen the experimental proposal.
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.

Referee Report

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript combines a historical review of radiation pressure with a derivation of the axial radiation-pressure force exerted by paraxial structured beams on a perfectly reflecting plane mirror. The central claim is that for Hermite-Gaussian and Laguerre-Gaussian modes the force ratio satisfies Fz/(2P/c) = 1 - (N+1)/(k^2 w0^2), so the force is always slightly smaller than the plane-wave value, with the reduction set by the total transverse mode number and connected to the Gouy phase. The authors link the result to the M^2 beam-propagation factor and propose an integrating-sphere speckle-based experiment to measure a predicted reduction of roughly 20 fN/W per unit orbital angular momentum.

Significance. If the central formula is correct, the paper offers a compact and useful result that ties the Gouy phase to optomechanics, with a falsifiable prediction and a possible experimental route. The final expression is consistent with standard paraxial beam optics, and the magnitude of the effect is plausible. However, as printed the derivation contains a sign inconsistency that prevents a reader from reproducing the central claim, and the numerical examples contain internal discrepancies. These issues must be fixed before the paper can be accepted; the underlying idea is sound enough to warrant a major revision rather than rejection.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eqs. (8)-(10)] The printed Eq. (8) is inconsistent with Eq. (10). Evaluating Eq. (8) at z = 0 and inserting Eq. (9), ⟨x^2+y^2⟩ = (N+1)w0^2/2, gives ⟨kz⟩ = k - (N+1)/z0 - (N+1)/(2z0) = k - 3(N+1)/(2z0), not the k - (N+1)/(2z0) stated in Eq. (10). The error is the sign of the second term in Eq. (8): using the standard paraxial phase of Eq. (4) with R(z) = z + z0^2/z, one obtains ∂z(R^{-1}) = (z0^2 - z^2)/(z^2 + z0^2)^2, so the term should contain (z0^2 - z^2), not (z^2 - z0^2). With that sign corrected, the algebra does lead to Eqs. (10) and (11). As printed, however, a reader cannot reproduce the central result from the displayed equations; the derivation must be corrected and the intermediate algebra shown explicitly.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (11)] The step from ⟨kz⟩ to the force Fz = 2P⟨kz⟩/ω is asserted rather than derived for a structured field. Because the longitudinal field components of a paraxial beam contribute to the Maxwell stress tensor at order 1/(kw0)^2, the same order as the predicted correction, the paper should either justify the single-photon momentum-transfer argument explicitly (for example, through an angular-spectrum decomposition of the field and the resulting momentum flux) or state clearly that Eq. (11) is the leading paraxial approximation. Without this, the central quantitative claim rests on an unstated assumption about the validity of extending the plane-wave reflection result to structured beams.
  3. [Section 3.3 and Section 4] The numerical example contains internal inconsistencies. For a 1064 nm beam with w0 = 0.1 mm, Eq. (19) gives 1/(k^2 w0^2) ≈ 2.9 × 10^-6, hence ΔFz per unit mode number is (2P/c) × 2.9 × 10^-6 ≈ 19 fN/W, i.e. 0.019 pN/W, not '∼ 0.1 pN/W' as stated in Section 3.3. The following sentence, 'for a 10 W laser, this estimates the force to be 0.19 pN', is consistent with 19 fN/W times 10 W, but the preceding '0.1 pN/W' is not. In addition, the misalignment tolerance quoted in Section 3.1 as '0.5 arcminutes per unit N' appears to be off by an order of magnitude: for 632.8 nm and w0 = 0.1 mm, √2/(kw0) ≈ 1.4 × 10^-3 rad ≈ 5 arcminutes. These corrected numbers should be used throughout because the experimental feasibility discussion depends on them.
  4. [Section 4] The experimental proposal is a sketch rather than a feasibility analysis. The paper states that a central membrane deflection of roughly 5.6 nm for 20 fN would be resolvable because 27 pm displacements have been measured in a similar integrating-sphere configuration, but it does not provide an error budget. Thermal and mechanical noise of the membrane, calibration of the deflection-to-force compliance, radiation heating, alignment drift, and the systematic effect of the beam's intensity profile on the membrane are not quantified. If the paper is to claim that the measurement is 'within the realm of current metrological techniques', a quantitative noise and sensitivity estimate is required.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Section 3.1, Eq. (5)] The notation ⟨∂zθ⟩ should be defined explicitly as ∫ dx dy |A|^2 ∂zθ; as written, it is clear in context but the expectation value notation is introduced without definition.
  2. [Section 3.1, Eq. (7)] The factor '1 2k' in Eq. (7) is ambiguous; it should be typeset as (k/2), consistent with the coefficient in Eq. (8).
  3. [General] The name 'Guoy' should be 'Gouy' throughout, including in Eq. (4) and Section 3.1.
  4. [Section 2] The historical section contains broad statements about the sociopolitical context of early astronomy that are not supported by the cited references; these should be tightened or removed to keep the review focused.
  5. [Section 3.1, Eq. (12)] The misalignment tolerance should be written as θ ≈ √(2(N+1))/(kw0) for a general mode number N, rather than stating a single 'per unit N' value, to avoid ambiguity.
  6. [Section 3.3, Eq. (15)] The normalization of the LG modes is stated but not demonstrated; a short derivation or explicit reference for the normalization coefficient would improve reproducibility.
  7. [Section 3.1, after Eq. (8)] The description of the result from Ref. [8] as an 'upper bound on the second moment' is vague; the specific inequality used should be stated so that the reader can follow the derivation of Eq. (9).
  8. [Figure 2] The caption states that the values inside the squares are 'beam widths in units of w0', but the colorbar is labelled 'Flp [fN/W]'; clarify what the entries and the color scale represent.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central force shift is an independent paraxial-phase calculation, with self-citations confined to the experimental feasibility discussion.

full rationale

The load-bearing derivation in Section 3.1 is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs by construction. Equation (11) follows from external, independently published ingredients: the standard paraxial phase ansatz of Eq. (4) (including the Gouy phase term), the momentum-operator definition of Eq. (2), and the standard modal spot-size formula of Eq. (9), attributed to Feng and Winful, Carter, and Phillips and Andrews. No parameter is fitted to the predicted force, and the Gouy phase is not defined in terms of radiation pressure; the result is obtained by differentiating the phase and using standard beam-width relations. The only self-citations (Facchin et al., Dholakia group) occur in Section 4, where they are used to argue that the proposed integrating-sphere displacement measurement is feasible; they do not support the central derivation. A separate internal algebra issue in Eq. (8) as printed would be a correctness or typographical concern rather than circularity, because it does not make Eq. (11) equivalent to the input phase by definition.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central formula is parameter-free: it depends on the beam waist, wavenumber, and mode number, all of which are physical inputs. The only ad hoc numerical value is the membrane compliance used in the experimental proposal.

free parameters (1)
  • Membrane central deflection compliance = 0.28 nm/fN
    Estimated in Section 4 without derivation or citation; used to claim experimental feasibility. This is not fitted to data but is an ad hoc model value with no error bar.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Paraxial approximation and scalar field description are valid for the structured beams considered.
    Section 3.1 introduces the field as propagating dominantly along z and uses a scalar envelope; non-paraxial corrections are ignored despite being of the same order as the result.
  • domain assumption The mirror is perfectly reflecting, flat, infinite, and normally illuminated, so the reflected beam has the same transverse profile and the force is 2 times the incident axial momentum.
    Eq (11) and Section 3.1; real mirrors are not perfect, and misalignment masks the effect as the authors note.
  • standard math For HG and LG modes, the second moment of the transverse coordinate is ⟨x^2+y^2⟩=(N+1)w^2/2, as given by Feng-Winful, Carter, and Phillips-Andrews.
    Used in Eq (9) to replace the spot size with (N+1)w^2/2; this is a known result in beam optics.
  • standard math The integral ∫A*∂zA vanishes because the mode power is normalized and conserved.
    Eq (6); relies on the normalization ⟨E|E⟩=1 and d/dz of the norm being zero.
  • domain assumption A photon's energy-momentum relation ω=kc holds in vacuum, so the force per power is 2⟨kz⟩/ω in appropriate units.
    Used to convert momentum to force; standard for paraxial beams.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Radiation Pressure of Light: historical perspectives and the role of structured light." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OXBHYB3L

@misc{pith2026250418789,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Radiation Pressure of Light: historical perspectives and the role of structured light},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OXBHYB3L}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18789}
}
abstract

Light, or electromagnetic radiation, is well known to possess momentum, and the exchange of this momentum with a reflecting surface leads to radiation pressure. More often than not, it is the radiation pressure generated by a plane wave incident on a flat mirror that is considered. The last few decades have seen the emergence of structured light beams that may possess a complex phase and amplitude structure in both their transverse and longitudinal directions. This paper provides a historical overview of radiation pressure, tracing its discovery and experimental validation, and examines how transitioning to structured light from a plane wave can influence it. In particular, we elucidate the difference in radiation pressure force for structured light fields and how this differs from that of a plane wave at an identical frequency. In particular, the well-known Gouy phase is shown to contribute to a reduction in the radiation pressure force exerted on a flat mirror in comparison to a plane wave for both HG and LG modes. As an illustrative example, we compute that the radiation pressure force for LG modes differs from that of a plane wave by approximately $20$ fN/W for each unit of orbital angular momentum. A detailed experimental proposal to quantify this variance in radiation pressure is described, and we demonstrate that this measurement is within the realm of current metrological techniques.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18789 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The experimental diagram published by Nichols & Hull in their landmark paper Nichols & Hull [15]. Like many others attempting to measure the Maxwell-Bartoli effect at the time, their radiometry apparatus was based around a torsion balance to achieve the fine sensitivity required for the measurement. Achieving suitable isolation from erroneous thermodynamic forces plagued the numerous measurement attempts. (reprinted… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Radiation pressure differences arising from LG modes with differing radial and azimuthal indices. The radiation pressure values follow from equation (19), and the values within each square correspond to beam widths in units of w0. The values are based on a 1064nm laser with a 0.1mm beam waist. experiments, as discussed by Facchin et al. [36]. By separating a hemisphere and a mirror-like reflective membrane, one can … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The optical layout of the proposed radiation pressure experiment. Here, a laser is shaped into an LG mode and focused onto a membrane via a spatial light modulator (SLM) and objective, imparting radiation pressure. This allows the LG mode (a) to be changed without risking misalignment of the beam incident on the membrane. The integrating sphere lies on the other side of the membrane, creating a sensitive speckle pat… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B., Dholakia, K., Allen, L

    Simpson, N. B., Dholakia, K., Allen, L. & Padgett, M. J. Mechanical equivalence of spin and orbital angular momentum of light: an optical spanner. Optics Letters 22 (1997)

    work page 1997

  2. [2]

    Chen, M., Mazilu, M., Arita, Y., Wright, E. M. & Dholakia, K. Dynamics of microparticles trapped in a perfect vortex beam. Optics Letters 38, 4919 (2013)

    work page 2013

  3. [3]

    Padgett, M. J. Orbital angular momentum 25 years on [Invited]. Optics Express 25, 11265 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Shaw, G. A. et al. Comparison of electrostatic and photon pressure force references at the nanonewton level. Metrologia 56, 025002 (2019)

    work page 2019

  5. [5]

    Lembessis, V. E. & Babiker, M. Mechanical effects on atoms interacting with highly twisted Laguerre-Gaussian light. Physical Review A 94, 043854 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    Davis, L. W. Theory of electromagnetic beams. Physical Review A 19, 1177–1179 (1979)

    work page 1979

  7. [7]

    Topological phase in Gaussian beam optics

    Subbarao, D. Topological phase in Gaussian beam optics. Optics Letters 20, 2162 (1995)

    work page 1995

  8. [8]

    & Winful, H

    Feng, S. & Winful, H. G. Physical origin of the Gouy phase shift. Optics Letters 26, 485 (2001)

    work page 2001

Show all 37 references
  1. [9]

    Li, Z. et al. Traceable Laser Power Measure- ment Using a Micro-Machined Force Sensor with Sub-Piconewton Resolution in 2019 20th Interna- tional Conference on Solid-State Sensors, Actu- ators and Microsystems & Eurosensors XXXIII (TRANSDUCERS & EUROSENSORS XXXIII) 2019 20th I...

    2019

  2. [10]

    Qiu, S. et al. Directly observing the skew angle of a Poynting vector in an OAM carrying beam via angular diffraction. Optics Letters 46, 3484 (2021)

    2021

  3. [11]

    J., Saunter, C

    Leach, J., Keen, S., Padgett, M. J., Saunter, C. & Love, G. D. Direct measurement of the skew angle of the Poynting vector in a helically phased beam. Optics Express 14, 11919 (2006)

    2006

  4. [12]

    Switching and measuring a force of 25 femtoNewtons with an optical trap

    Rohrbach, A. Switching and measuring a force of 25 femtoNewtons with an optical trap. Optics Express 13, 9695 (2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    Christianson, J. R. & Brahe, T. Tycho Brahe’s German Treatise on the Comet of 1577: A Study in Science and Politics. Isis 70, 110–140 (1979)

    1979

  6. [14]

    Untersuchungen ¨ uber die Druckkr¨ afte des Lichtes

    Lebedew, P. Untersuchungen ¨ uber die Druckkr¨ afte des Lichtes. Annalen der Physik 311, 433–458 (1901)

    1901

  7. [15]

    Nichols, E. F. & Hull, G. F. A Preliminary Communication on the Pressure of Heat and Light Radiation. Physical Review (Series I) 13, 307–320 (1901)

    1901

  8. [16]

    Nichols, E. F. & Hull, G. F. The Pressure due to Radiation. The Astrophysical Journal 17, 315– 351 (1903)

    1903

  9. [17]

    ¨Uber einen die Erzeugung und Ver- wandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt

    Einstein, A. ¨Uber einen die Erzeugung und Ver- wandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen Gesichtspunkt. Annalen der Physik 322, 132–148 (1905)

    1905

  10. [18]

    Poynting, J. H. The wave motion of a revolving shaft, and a suggestion as to the angular momentum in a beam of circularly polarised light (1909)

    1909

  11. [19]

    Beth, R. A. Mechanical Detection and Measure- ment of the Angular Momentum of Light. Physi- cal Review 50, 115–125 (1936)

    1936

  12. [20]

    Carter, W. H. Spot size and divergence for Hermite Gaussian beams of any order. Optica Publishing Group 19, 1027–1029 (1980)

    1980

  13. [21]

    Phillips, R. L. & Andrews, L. C. Spot size and divergence for Laguerre Gaussian beams of any order. Applied Optics 22, 643 (1983)

    1983

  14. [22]

    & Paulus, G

    Stoyanov, L., Stefanov, A., Dreischuh, A. & Paulus, G. G. Gouy phase of Bessel-Gaussian beams: theory vs. experiment. Optics Express 31, 13683 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    & Padgett, M

    Wan, Z., Yessenov, M. & Padgett, M. J. The propagation speed of optical speckle. Scientific Reports 13, 9071 (2023). REFERENCES 11

    2023

  16. [24]

    & Sheppard, C

    Saghafi, S. & Sheppard, C. The beam propagation factor for higher order Gaussian beams. Optics Communications 153, 207–210 (1998)

    1998

  17. [25]

    Siegman, A. E. How to (Maybe) Measure Laser Beam Quality in DPSS (Diode Pumped Solid State) Lasers: Applications and Issues Diode Pumped Solid State Lasers: Applications and Issues (OSA, Washington, D.C., 1998), MQ1

    1998

  18. [26]

    Hyde, M. W. & Spencer, M. F. M2 factor of a vector Schell-model beam. Optical Engineering 58, 1 (2019)

    2019

  19. [27]

    Metzger, N. K. et al. Harnessing speckle for a sub-femtometre resolved broadband wavemeter and laser stabilization. Nature Communications 8, 15610 (2017)

    2017

  20. [28]

    & Rosen, J

    Vijayakumar, A., Jayavel, D., Muthaiah, M., Bhattacharya, S. & Rosen, J. Implementation of a speckle-correlation-based optical lever with extended dynamic range. Applied Optics 58, 5982 (2019)

    2019

  21. [29]

    Metzger, N. K. et al. Integrating sphere based speckle generation for wavelength determination and laser stabilization in Frontiers in Optics 2016 Frontiers in Optics (OSA, Rochester, New York, 2016), FTh4C.4

    2016

  22. [30]

    Facchin, M., Bruce, G. D. & Dholakia, K. Measurement of Variations in Gas Refractive Index with 10 –9 Resolution Using Laser Speckle. ACS Photonics 9, 830–836 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Facchin, M., Bruce, G. D. & Dholakia, K. Measuring picometre-level displacements using speckle patterns produced by an integrating sphere. Scientific Reports 13, 14607 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    & Bruce, G

    Facchin, M., Dholakia, K. & Bruce, G. D. Wavelength sensitivity of the speckle patterns produced by an integrating sphere. Journal of Physics: Photonics 3, 035005 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    D., O’Donnell, L., Chen, M

    Bruce, G. D., O’Donnell, L., Chen, M. & Dholakia, K. Overcoming the speckle correlation limit to achieve a fiber wavemeter with attometer resolution. Optics Letters 44, 1367 (2019)

    2019

  26. [34]

    Perspective on speckle spectrometers

    Cao, H. Perspective on speckle spectrometers. Journal of Optics 19, 060402 (2017)

    2017

  27. [35]

    P., Patil, S., Kumar, V

    Raskatla, V., Singh, B. P., Patil, S., Kumar, V. & Singh, R. P. Speckle-based deep learning approach for classification of orbital angular momentum modes. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 39, 759 (2022)

    2022

  28. [36]

    N., Dholakia, K

    Facchin, M., Khan, S. N., Dholakia, K. & Bruce, G. D. Determining intrinsic sensitivity and the role of multiple scattering in speckle metrology. Nature Reviews Physics 6, 500–508 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    Jain, V. et al. Direct measurement of photon recoil from a levitated nanoparticle. Physical review letters 116, 243601 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

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