Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 8 minor 74 references

Constraining symmetron fields with a levitated optomechanical system

T0 review · 4 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a levitated nanosphere in an optical cavity could tighten symmetron parameter bounds by 1 to 3 orders of magnitude over current force-based tests.

desk verdict A promising symmetron-probe proposal whose low-mass claim fails because a two-mirror cavity at mu=10^-4 eV cannot support a nonzero field; with corrections, the rest of the range may hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17744 v1 pith:UN5N6LCV submitted 2024-11-25 gr-qc astro-ph.COquant-ph

Jiawei Li , Ka-di Zhu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.COquant-ph
keywords symmetronscreenedfifthforcedarkenergylevitatedoptomechanicsgradientopticalcavityfrequencyshiftparameterconstraints
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 proposes a laboratory probe for the symmetron, a light scalar field motivated by dark-energy theories that acquires a nonzero value in low-density vacuum and decouples inside dense matter. The idea is to trap a 100-nm silica sphere in a high-finesse optical cavity and use the symmetron field of a nearby mirror as a force gradient acting on the sphere: the gradient shifts the sphere's mechanical resonance, and the shift is read out as a displacement of the probe transmission peak. Using the measured linewidth of that peak as the resolution floor, the scheme reaches $\nabla F_{\min}=6.80\times10^{-16}\,\mathrm{N/m}$. In the symmetron mass window $10^{-4}$ to $10^{-1}\,\mathrm{eV}$, the derived exclusion regions for the coupling parameter $\lambda$ are 1 to 3 orders of magnitude stronger than existing force-based searches, with the largest gain at $\mu=0.1\,\mathrm{eV}$.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the one-dimensional symmetron profile $\phi(x)=v\tanh(\mu x/\sqrt{2})$ near a planar source mass, together with the screening factor $\lambda_{\mathrm{sphere}}=\min(3M^2/(\rho R^2),1)$ that replaces the sphere's bare mass by an effective $4\pi R$ coupling in the strongly screened limit. This profile converts the model parameters $(\mu,\lambda,M)$ into a concrete force gradient on the nanosphere. The detection mechanism is optomechanical: the gradient changes the spring constant of the optical trap, shifting $\omega_n$ by $\Delta\omega=(\omega_n/2k)\,\partial_x F$, and the shift appears as a resolvable displacement of the probe transmission peak; the peak's full width at half maximum sets the detection floor.

What would settle it

Numerically solve the nonlinear symmetron equation in the actual three-dimensional geometry--flat source mirror, curved 10-$\mu$m-radius mirror, 2-mm separation, 100-nm sphere at $d=5\,\mu$m--and compare the force gradient at the sphere to Eq. (2.30); if the one-dimensional tanh profile deviates by more than the claimed sensitivity, especially near $\mu=10^{-4}$ eV, the forecast constraints would need to be revised.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the screened symmetron force between a flat mirror and a small levitated sphere is measurable through the frequency shift it imprints on the sphere's mechanical oscillator. For a symmetron with tachyonic mass $\mu$, self-coupling $\lambda$, and matter-coupling scale $M$, the field near an infinite planar wall has the kink profile $\phi(x)=v\tanh(\mu x/\sqrt{2})$ with $v=\mu/\sqrt{\lambda}$, and a strongly screened sphere feels the gradient $\partial F/\partial x=(2\pi\mu^4 R/\lambda)(3\tanh^2(\mu x/\sqrt{2})-1)\mathrm{sech}^2(\mu x/\sqrt{2})$. Because a force gradient $\partial F/\partial x$ changes the trap spring constant, it shifts the resonance frequency by $\Delta\omega=(\omega_n/2k)\,\partial F/\partial x$. With the stated parameters--$R=100$ nm, $d=5\,\mu$m, $\omega_n=2\pi\times125$ kHz, cavity linewidth $\kappa=2\pi\times215$ kHz, and a $4.7\times10^{-5}$ Hz probe peak FWHM--the minimum resolvable gradient is $6.80\times10^{-16}$ N/m. Imposing the screening conditions $\rho_{\mathrm{vac}}<\mu^2M^2<\rho_{\mathrm{sphere}}$ and $3M^2/(\rho_{\mathrm{sphere}}R^2)<1$, the paper turns that sensitivity into exclusion curves in the $(\mu,\lambda)$ plane that improve on force-based bounds by 1 to 3 orders of magnitude across $\mu=10^{-4}$ to $10^{-1}$ eV.

Load-bearing premise

The forecast rests on treating one mirror as an infinite flat plate and ignoring the back-reaction of the nanosphere and the second mirror, an approximation that is least safe when the symmetron mass is low.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A null measurement with the proposed setup would exclude symmetron self-couplings down to values roughly one to three orders of magnitude below current force-based limits in the $\mu=10^{-4}$ to $10^{-1}$ eV window.
  • The strongest improvement sits at $\mu=0.1$ eV, where the $\nabla F_{\min}=6.80\times10^{-16}$ N/m sensitivity translates into the largest excluded area.
  • Combined with existing atom-interferometry, torsion-balance, Casimir, and bouncing-neutron bounds, the scheme would leave only complementary islands of symmetron parameter space unexplored.
  • The same frequency-shift readout can be improved with cavity-assisted cooling and higher-finesse cavities, extending the reach to still smaller force gradients.
  • The method is restricted to masses satisfying $\mu R\ll1$ and $\mu\gtrsim L^{-1}$, so it cannot replace probes at much higher or lower symmetron masses.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the readout is a generic force-gradient sensor, the same cavity could in principle test other screened scalar theories, such as chameleon fields, without changing the optical layout.
  • At the low-mass end, the infinite-plate profile likely overestimates the gradient: with $\mu\simeq10^{-4}$ eV the symmetron Compton wavelength is comparable to the 2 mm cavity length, so a two-mirror numerical solution would be needed to know how much the exclusion curves shrink.
  • A parameter-free consistency test would be to scan the sphere-mirror distance $d$ and locate where $\partial F/\partial x$ changes sign; the tanh profile predicts this at $\tanh^2(\mu d/\sqrt{2})=1/3$, which depends only on $\mu$.
  • Using a smaller, well-characterized source mass instead of a flat mirror would make the forecast less dependent on the infinite-wall geometry and would test the screening factor $\lambda_{\mathrm{sphere}}$ directly.
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

4 major / 8 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a levitated optomechanical experiment to probe symmetron dark-energy fields. A fused-silica nanosphere is trapped inside a high-finesse cavity near a flat mirror; the symmetron field produced by the mirror exerts a force gradient on the sphere, shifting the mechanical resonance frequency, which is read out through the probe transmission spectrum. The authors derive the optomechanical response, estimate a minimum detectable force gradient of 6.80e-16 N/m, and use the one-dimensional symmetron profile near a single infinite planar wall to forecast excluded regions in the (M, λ) parameter space for μ between 10^-4 and 10^-1 eV. They claim 1-3 orders of magnitude improvement over existing force-based symmetron constraints. The paper is a feasibility forecast rather than a measurement.

Significance. If the forecast is reliable, it identifies a promising new probe of symmetron fields in a mass window currently covered only partially by Casimir, torsion-balance, atom-interferometry, and neutron experiments. The concrete experimental parameters, the transparent relation between force gradient and measurable frequency shift, and the direct comparison with existing constraints are useful. However, the quantitative claim rests on two assumptions that the manuscript does not validate: the use of an exact one-mirror tanh field profile in a two-mirror cavity, and the internal consistency of the optomechanical spectrum calculation. Both points are checkable and fixable, but they are load-bearing for the central forecast.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 2.2, Eq. (2.25); Sec. 3.2] The symmetron profile φ(x)=v tanh(μx/√2) is the exact solution for a single infinite planar mirror in an unbounded half-space, but the proposed setup is a two-mirror cavity of length L=2 mm with both mirrors dense, so the field must vanish at both mirrors. For a two-mirror system the linearized condition for a nontrivial solution is μL ≥ π, not μ ≥ L^{-1}. At μ=10^-4 eV, μL ≈ 1.0 < π, so the field is expected to be identically zero in the cavity and the predicted force gradient at d=5 μm vanishes. This invalidates the μ=10^-4 panel of Fig. 7 and the low-mass edge of the advertised 10^-4 to 10^-1 eV range. The authors should use the exact one- and two-mirror solutions of Ref. [50] or numerical relaxation, which Sec. 4 itself concedes is still needed.
  2. [Sec. 2.1, Eqs. (2.10), (2.11), (2.17)] Equation (2.17) is inconsistent with the steady-state solutions in Eqs. (2.10) and (2.11). At Δp=0, Eq. (2.10) gives c0 = Ωp / (κ - i g N0), and with N0 = 2g|c0|^2/ωn this yields |c0|^2 = Ωp^2 / [κ^2 + (2g^2|c0|^2/ωn)^2]. The g-dependent term in the square is therefore 4g^4ω0^2/ωn^2, whereas Eq. (2.17) contains g^4ω0^2/ωn^2. Either N0 should be g|c0|^2/ωn or the bracket in Eq. (2.17) should contain 2g^2ω0/ωn. This factor of 4 changes the photon number used in the transmission spectrum and thereby the numerical FWHM in Fig. 3 and the detection limit in Eq. (3.3).
  3. [Sec. 3.2, paragraph on the feasible μ range] The text swaps the lower and upper bounds on μ. The condition μ ≥ L^{-1} is a lower bound on μ set by the cavity length, while μR ≪ 1 is an upper bound on μ set by the small-sphere approximation. As written, the text calls the former an upper bound and the latter a lower bound. This is not merely a wording slip: the stated logic for the range 10^-4 to 10^-1 eV is reversed, and the lower-bound condition should also be corrected to the two-mirror threshold μL ≥ π discussed above.
  4. [Sec. 2.2, Eqs. (2.25)-(2.30); Fig. 6] The force calculation assumes the source mirror is an infinite planar wall and that the sphere does not back-react on the field. The manuscript never specifies the lateral size of the flat mirror, so the infinite-plane approximation at d=5 μm is unvalidated; the other mirror has radius of curvature 10 μm, and at low μ the finite size and the two-mirror boundary conditions can both reduce the gradient. The paper's own Sec. 4 states that numerical relaxation for complex geometries is still needed. Since the forecast constraints in Fig. 7 scale directly with the computed ∇F, a quantitative check of the profile under the actual geometry is required before the exclusion regions can be accepted.
minor comments (8)
  1. [Sec. 1, abstract and introduction] The abstract and introduction say the constraints improve by '1 to 3 orders' and '3 to 1 orders' inconsistently; the intended statement is 1 to 3 orders of magnitude, and it should be stated uniformly.
  2. [Sec. 1, introduction] The sentence 'The most popular answer seems to be dark energy, where the acceleration of expansion is explained within the framework of the scalar field' is missing an article and should read 'within the framework of a scalar field'.
  3. [Sec. 2.1, near Eq. (2.5)] The text says 'the communication relations that [c,c†]=1 and [a,a†]=1'; this should be 'commutation relations'.
  4. [Sec. 2.1, Eq. (2.13)] The right-hand side '2ωngc2^0' should be '2ωn g |c0|^2' or '2ωn g c0^2' with the appropriate convention; as printed the notation is ambiguous.
  5. [Sec. 2.2, Fig. 2 caption] The caption says the quantities are plotted with 'µ2/λ and µ2/λ·x as dimension'; this is unclear and should be rewritten, for example as dimensionless variables μx and λF/(μ^2 v^2 R) or similar.
  6. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (3.8)] The densities are quoted as 'ρvac ≈ 10eV and ρsphere ≈ 10^18eV in natural units'; energy densities should have units of eV^4, and the numerical value for air at 10^-10 mbar is approximately 10^-2 eV^4, not 10 eV^4. The constraint is insensitive to this difference, but the units should be corrected.
  7. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 7 caption] The list 'µ = 10−1eV, 10−2eV, 10−3eV, 10−4eV' should be written in ascending order (10^-4, 10^-3, 10^-2, 10^-1 eV) to match the figures and the text.
  8. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (3.3)] The FWHM is quoted in Hz, but Eq. (2.4) and the subsequent detection-limit calculation use angular frequency; the manuscript should state explicitly whether Δω_FWHM is in rad/s or Hz and ensure Eq. (3.3) uses the same convention throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the symmetron forecast is derived from external exact solutions and a separately derived optomechanical noise floor, with only incidental self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is: symmetron Lagrangian (Eq. 2.21) -> equation of motion (Eq. 2.23) -> one-plate exact solution phi(x) = v tanh(mu x/sqrt(2)) (Eq. 2.25), explicitly attributed to external treatments in refs. [50-52] -> force and force gradient (Eqs. 2.29-2.30) -> optomechanical frequency-shift relation (Eq. 2.4) -> minimum detectable gradient (Eq. 3.3) from a standard FWHM/noise analysis -> exclusion contours in Figs. 6-7. No parameter is fitted to the quantity being predicted; the constraints follow by comparing an independently computed gradient (Eq. 2.30) with an independently computed detection limit (Eq. 3.3). The self-citations [42] and [44] (both coauthored by K.-D. Zhu) are used only to motivate the standard pump-probe optomechanical readout and are not load-bearing: the quantum Langevin formalism is otherwise referenced to the independent literature [45-49], and the cited prior optomechanical results are peer-reviewed and externally checkable. The paper does not rename a known result, import a uniqueness theorem, or smuggle an ansatz through self-citation; Eq. (2.25) is a known external solution. The skeptic concern about the two-mirror cavity (at mu = 10^-4 eV the field must also vanish at the far mirror, so the tanh one-wall profile may be invalid) is a modeling-validity issue, not a circularity: it does not make the output equivalent to an input by construction. The paper itself concedes in Sec. 4 that 'More precise numerical relaxation techniques can be introduced in force calculations' and that approximations for complex geometries are needed, which further confirms this is a stated approximation rather than a concealed redefinition. Overall, the central forecast has independent content and no step reduces to its own input.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central forecast rests on the standard symmetron model and standard optomechanics, so the conceptual burden is low. The fragile entries are the geometric modeling assumptions (infinite planar mirror, no sphere back-reaction, no domain wall), which are not quantified and could change the force by order-one or more; and the hand-picked experimental parameters, which determine the claimed sensitivity.

free parameters (7)
  • Sphere radius R = 100 nm
    Chosen geometry; fixes the force scale through the 4πR prefactor in Eq. (2.28) and sets the validity window mu R << 1 used to bound mu.
  • Sphere-plate separation d = 5 μm
    Chosen operating distance; the symmetron force gradient in Eq. (2.30) is strongly distance dependent, so the projected constraints depend directly on this hand-picked value.
  • Vacuum pressure p = 10^-10 mbar
    Assumed pressure sets the gas damping rate gamma_n and suppresses momentum-exchange noise; the sensitivity forecast relies on reaching this vacuum.
  • Resonator temperature T = 293 K
    Room-temperature assumption enters the thermomechanical noise spectral density and Eq. (3.7).
  • Mechanical trap frequency omega_n = 2π × 125 kHz
    Chosen trap stiffness; enters the frequency shift relation Eq. (2.4) and the noise calculation.
  • Cavity decay rate kappa = 2π × 215 kHz
    Chosen from a high-finesse cavity; strongly affects the probe transmission spectrum and the FWHM in Fig. 3.
  • Density bounds for M = rho_vac ≈ 10 eV, rho_sphere ≈ 10^18 eV
    Approximate density values in natural units used in Eq. (3.8) to set the allowed M for each mu; changing these bounds shifts the constraint region.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The symmetron effective potential is 1/2(rho/M^2 - mu^2) phi^2 + lambda phi^4/4 + mu^4/(4 lambda), with symmetry breaking when rho < mu^2 M^2.
    Standard symmetron model from refs. [22,23,30]; the paper builds all constraints on this potential and its screening behavior.
  • domain assumption In vacuum outside a strongly screened planar source, the symmetron field has the tanh profile phi(x) = v tanh(mu x / sqrt(2)).
    Exact 1D solution for a planar wall, invoked in Eq. (2.25); applying it to the finite mirror and neglecting the sphere's back-reaction is not quantified.
  • domain assumption The sphere is in the thin-shell limit, with screening factor lambda_sphere ≈ 3M^2/(rho R^2) and lambda_sphere m_sphere/M^2 -> 4πR.
    Standard symmetron screening result from refs. [29,53]; used to derive Eq. (2.29).
  • ad hoc to paper The field settles to the positive minimum without forming a domain wall in the cavity.
    The paper notes in Sec. 2.2 that domain walls may form when the Compton wavelength fits in the cavity, but then assumes the positive branch only; a domain wall would change the force at the sphere.
  • domain assumption The measured frequency shift is dominated by the symmetron force gradient, with negligible Casimir, electrostatic, and photon-recoil backgrounds.
    The forecast in Sec. 3 does not include background force gradients from other sources; no quantitative justification is given for their neglect at d = 5 μm.
  • standard math The optomechanical Hamiltonian and quantum Langevin equations (2.1)-(2.6) describe the trapped nanosphere.
    Standard cavity optomechanics formalism from refs. [45-47]; used to derive the probe transmission spectrum.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraining symmetron fields with a levitated optomechanical system." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UN5N6LCV

@misc{pith2026241117744,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraining symmetron fields with a levitated optomechanical system},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UN5N6LCV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17744}
}
read the original abstract

The symmetron, one of the light scalar fields introduced by dark energy theories, is thought to modify the gravitational force when it couples to matter. However, detecting the symmetron field is challenging due to its screening behavior in the high-density environment of traditional measurements. In this paper, we propose a scheme to set constraints on the parameters of the symmetron with a levitated optomechanical system, in which a nanosphere serves as a testing mass coupled to an optical cavity. By measuring the frequency shift of the probe transmission spectrum, we can establish constraints for our scheme by calculating the symmetron-induced influence. These refined constraints improve by 1 to 3 orders of magnitude compared to current force-based detection methods, which offer new opportunities for the dark energy detection.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [50]

    Brax and M

    P. Brax and M. Pitschmann, Exact solutions to nonlinear symmetron theory: One- and two-mirror systems, Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) 064015

    work page 2018

  2. [1]

    Brax, What makes the universe accelerate? a review on what dark energy could be and how to test it , Reports on Progress in Physics 81 (2017) 016902

    P. Brax, What makes the universe accelerate? a review on what dark energy could be and how to test it , Reports on Progress in Physics 81 (2017) 016902

    work page 2017

  3. [2]

    Riess, A.V

    A.G. Riess, A.V. Filippenko, P. Challis et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an accelerating universe and a cosmological constant , The Astronomical Journal 116 (1998) 1009

    work page 1998

  4. [3]

    Schmidt, N.B

    B.P. Schmidt, N.B. Suntzeff, M.M. Phillips et al., The high-z supernova search: Measuring cosmic deceleration and global curvature of the universe using type ia supernovae , The Astrophysical Journal 507 (1998) 46

    work page 1998

  5. [4]

    Desmond, B

    H. Desmond, B. Jain and J. Sakstein, Local resolution of the hubble tension: The impact of screened fifth forces on the cosmic distance ladder , Phys. Rev. D 100 (2019) 043537

    work page 2019

  6. [5]

    Lombriser, On the cosmological constant problem , Physics Letters B 797 (2019) 134804

    L. Lombriser, On the cosmological constant problem , Physics Letters B 797 (2019) 134804

    work page 2019

  7. [6]

    coincidence problem

    H.E.S. Velten, R.F. vom Marttens and W. Zimdahl, Aspects of the cosmological “coincidence problem”, The European Physical Journal C 74 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [7]

    Sol` a,Cosmological constant and vacuum energy: old and new ideas , Journal of Physics: Conference Series 453 (2013) 012015

    J. Sol` a,Cosmological constant and vacuum energy: old and new ideas , Journal of Physics: Conference Series 453 (2013) 012015

    work page 2013

Show all 74 references
  1. [8]

    et al., Planck 2018 results - vi

    Planck Collaboration, Aghanim, N., Akrami, Y. et al., Planck 2018 results - vi. cosmological parameters (corrigendum), A & A 652 (2021) C4

    2021

  2. [9]

    Riess, W

    A.G. Riess, W. Yuan, L.M. Macri et al., A comprehensive measurement of the local value of the hubble constant with 1 km/s ·mpc uncertainty from the hubble space telescope and the sh0es team, The Astrophysical Journal Letters 934 (2022) L7

    2022

  3. [10]

    B¨ ohringer, Hans, Chon, Gayoung and Collins, Chris A., Observational evidence for a local underdensity in the universe and its effect on the measurement of the hubble constant , A& A 633 (2020) A19. – 12 –

    2020

  4. [11]

    J.H.W. Wong, T. Shanks, N. Metcalfe and J.R. Whitbourn, The local hole: a galaxy underdensity covering 90 percent of sky to 200Mpc , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 511 (2022) 5742

    2022

  5. [12]

    Sch¨ oneberg, G.F

    N. Sch¨ oneberg, G.F. Abell´ an, A.P. S´ anchez et al.,The H0 olympics: A fair ranking of proposed models, Physics Reports 984 (2022) 1

    2022

  6. [13]

    Safronova, D

    M.S. Safronova, D. Budker, D. DeMille et al., Search for new physics with atoms and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90 (2018) 025008

    2018

  7. [14]

    Feeney, D.J

    S.M. Feeney, D.J. Mortlock and N. Dalmasso, Clarifying the Hubble constant tension with a Bayesian hierarchical model of the local distance ladder , Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 476 (2018) 3861

    2018

  8. [15]

    Cardona, M

    W. Cardona, M. Kunz and V. Pettorino, Determining h0 with bayesian hyper-parameters , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2017 (2017) 056

    2017

  9. [16]

    Camarena, V

    D. Camarena, V. Marra, Z. Sakr et al., The Copernican principle in light of the latest cosmological data, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 509 (2021) 1291

    2021

  10. [17]

    COPELAND, M

    E.J. COPELAND, M. SAMI and S. TSUJIKA W A, Dynamics of dark energy , International Journal of Modern Physics D 15 (2006) 1753

    2006

  11. [18]

    H¨ og ˚ as and E

    M. H¨ og ˚ as and E. M¨ ortsell,Hubble tension and fifth forces , Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) 124050

    2023

  12. [19]

    Joyce, B

    A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury and M. Trodden, Beyond the cosmological standard model , Physics Reports 568 (2015) 1

    2015

  13. [20]

    Burrage, E.J

    C. Burrage, E.J. Copeland and E. Hinds, Probing dark energy with atom interferometry , Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2015 (2015) 042

    2015

  14. [21]

    Qvarfort, D

    S. Qvarfort, D. R¨ atzel and S. Stopyra, Constraining modified gravity with quantum optomechanics, New Journal of Physics 24 (2022) 033009

    2022

  15. [22]

    Brax, A.-C

    P. Brax, A.-C. Davis, B. Li et al., Unified description of screened modified gravity , Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 044015

    2012

  16. [23]

    Hinterbichler, J

    K. Hinterbichler, J. Khoury, A. Levy et al., Symmetron cosmology, Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 103521

    2011

  17. [24]

    Brax and P

    P. Brax and P. Valageas, k-mouflage cosmology: The background evolution , Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) 023507

    2014

  18. [25]

    Vainshtein, To the problem of nonvanishing gravitation mass , Physics Letters B 39 (1972) 393

    A. Vainshtein, To the problem of nonvanishing gravitation mass , Physics Letters B 39 (1972) 393

    1972

  19. [26]

    Ogden, K

    L. Ogden, K. Brown, H. Mathur and K. Rovelli, Electrostatic analogy for symmetron gravity , Phys. Rev. D 96 (2017) 124029

    2017

  20. [27]

    Babichev, C

    E. Babichev, C. Deffayet and R. Ziour, k-MOUFLAGE Gravity, International Journal of Modern Physics D 18 (2009) 2147

    2009

  21. [28]

    Nicolis, R

    A. Nicolis, R. Rattazzi and E. Trincherini, Galileon as a local modification of gravity , Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009) 064036

    2009

  22. [29]

    Elder, V

    B. Elder, V. Vardanyan, Y. Akrami et al., Classical symmetron force in casimir experiments , Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 064065

    2020

  23. [30]

    Burrage, A

    C. Burrage, A. Kuribayashi-Coleman, J. Stevenson et al., Constraining symmetron fields with atom interferometry, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2016 (2016) 041

    2016

  24. [31]

    Brax, Screening mechanisms in modified gravity , Classical and Quantum Gravity 30 (2013) 214005

    P. Brax, Screening mechanisms in modified gravity , Classical and Quantum Gravity 30 (2013) 214005

    2013

  25. [32]

    Pietroni, Dark energy condensation , Phys

    M. Pietroni, Dark energy condensation , Phys. Rev. D 72 (2005) 043535. – 13 –

    2005

  26. [33]

    Amendola, S

    The Euclid Theory Working Group, L. Amendola, S. Appleby, A. Avgoustidis, D. Bacon, T. Baker et al., Cosmology and fundamental physics with the euclid satellite , Living Reviews in Relativity 21 (2018)

    2018

  27. [34]

    Kapner, T.S

    D.J. Kapner, T.S. Cook, E.G. Adelberger et al., Tests of the gravitational inverse-square law below the dark-energy length scale , Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 021101

    2007

  28. [35]

    Upadhye, Symmetron dark energy in laboratory experiments , Phys

    A. Upadhye, Symmetron dark energy in laboratory experiments , Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 (2013) 031301

    2013

  29. [36]

    Decca, D

    R.S. Decca, D. L´ opez, E. Fischbach et al., Tests of new physics from precise measurements of the casimir pressure between two gold-coated plates , Phys. Rev. D 75 (2007) 077101

    2007

  30. [37]

    Lamoreaux, Demonstration of the casimir force in the 0.6 to 6µm range, Phys

    S.K. Lamoreaux, Demonstration of the casimir force in the 0.6 to 6µm range, Phys. Rev. Lett. 78 (1997) 5

    1997

  31. [38]

    Cronenberg, P

    G. Cronenberg, P. Brax, H. Filter et al., Acoustic rabi oscillations between gravitational quantum states and impact on symmetron dark energy , Nature Physics 14 (2018)

    2018

  32. [39]

    Fischer, C

    H. Fischer, C. K¨ ading, H. Lemmel et al., Search for dark energy with neutron interferometry , Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics 2024 (2024)

    2024

  33. [40]

    Brax and A.-C

    P. Brax and A.-C. Davis, Atomic interferometry test of dark energy , Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 104069

    2016

  34. [41]

    Jaffe, P

    M. Jaffe, P. Haslinger, V. Xu et al., Testing sub-gravitational forces on atoms from a miniature, in-vacuum source mass , Nature Physics 13 (2016)

    2016

  35. [42]

    L. Chen, J. Liu and K.-D. Zhu, Constraining the axion-nucleon coupling and non-newtonian gravity with a levitated optomechanical device , Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) 095007

    2022

  36. [43]

    Geraci, S.B

    A.A. Geraci, S.B. Papp and J. Kitching, Short-range force detection using optically cooled levitated microspheres, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105 (2010) 101101

    2010

  37. [44]

    Liu and K.-D

    J. Liu and K.-D. Zhu, Nanogravity gradiometer based on a sharp optical nonlinearity in a levitated particle optomechanical system , Phys. Rev. D 95 (2017) 044014

    2017

  38. [45]

    Genes, D

    C. Genes, D. Vitali, P. Tombesi et al., Ground-state cooling of a micromechanical oscillator: Comparing cold damping and cavity-assisted cooling schemes , Phys. Rev. A 77 (2008) 033804

    2008

  39. [46]

    Giovannetti and D

    V. Giovannetti and D. Vitali, Phase-noise measurement in a cavity with a movable mirror undergoing quantum brownian motion , Phys. Rev. A 63 (2001) 023812

    2001

  40. [47]

    Gardiner and P

    C. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Optics , Springer Series in Synergetics, Springer (2004)

    2004

  41. [48]

    Boyd and D

    R. Boyd and D. Prato, Nonlinear Optics, Elsevier Science (2008)

    2008

  42. [49]

    Bowen and G

    W. Bowen and G. Milburn, Quantum Optomechanics, CRC Press (2015)

    2015

  43. [51]

    Burrage, B

    C. Burrage, B. Elder and P. Millington, Particle level screening of scalar forces in 1 + 1 dimensions, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) 024045

    2019

  44. [52]

    L. Hui, A. Nicolis and C.W. Stubbs, Equivalence principle implications of modified gravity models, Phys. Rev. D 80 (2009) 104002

    2009

  45. [53]

    Hinterbichler and J

    K. Hinterbichler and J. Khoury, Screening long-range forces through local symmetry restoration, Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010) 231301

    2010

  46. [54]

    Deli´ c, D

    U. Deli´ c, D. Grass, M. Reisenbauer et al., Levitated cavity optomechanics in high vacuum , Quantum Science and Technology 5 (2020) 025006. – 14 –

    2020

  47. [55]

    Jiang, Z

    Z. Jiang, Z. Wu, W. Yang et al., Numerical simulations on narrow-linewidth photonic microwave generation based on a qd laser simultaneously subject to optical injection and optical feedback, Appl. Opt. 59 (2020) 2935

    2020

  48. [56]

    Gieseler, L

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

    2013

  49. [57]

    Groeblacher, K

    S. Groeblacher, K. Hammerer, M. Vanner et al., Observation of strong coupling between a micromechanical resonator and an optical cavity field , Nature 460 (2009) 724

    2009

  50. [58]

    Hunger, T

    D. Hunger, T. Steinmetz, Y. Colombe et al., A fiber fabry–perot cavity with high finesse , New Journal of Physics 12 (2010) 065038

    2010

  51. [59]

    Chang, C.A

    D.E. Chang, C.A. Regal, S.B. Papp et al., Cavity opto-mechanics using an optically levitated nanosphere, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (2010) 1005

    2010

  52. [60]

    Berman and V

    P. Berman and V. Malinovsky, Principles of Laser Spectroscopy and Quantum Optics , Princeton University Press (2011)

    2011

  53. [61]

    Mori, Statistical-Mechanical Theory of Kinetic Equations: Kinetic Equations for Dense Gases and Liquids , Progress of Theoretical Physics 49 (1973) 1516

    H. Mori, Statistical-Mechanical Theory of Kinetic Equations: Kinetic Equations for Dense Gases and Liquids , Progress of Theoretical Physics 49 (1973) 1516

    1973

  54. [62]

    Ekinci, Y.T

    K.L. Ekinci, Y.T. Yang and M.L. Roukes, Ultimate limits to inertial mass sensing based upon nanoelectromechanical systems, Journal of Applied Physics 95 (2004) 2682

    2004

  55. [63]

    Cleland and M.L

    A.N. Cleland and M.L. Roukes, Noise processes in nanomechanical resonators , Journal of Applied Physics 92 (2002) 2758

    2002

  56. [64]

    Robins and I

    W. Robins and I. of Electrical Engineers, Phase Noise in Signal Sources: Theory and Applications, IEE telecommunications series, P. Peregrinus (1984)

    1984

  57. [65]

    Brax and A.-C

    P. Brax and A.-C. Davis, Casimir, gravitational, and neutron tests of dark energy , Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) 063503

    2015

  58. [66]

    Sabulsky, I

    D.O. Sabulsky, I. Dutta, E.A. Hinds et al., Experiment to detect dark energy forces using atom interferometry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) 061102

    2019

  59. [67]

    Chen, W.K

    Y.-J. Chen, W.K. Tham, D.E. Krause et al., Stronger limits on hypothetical yukawa interactions in the 30–8000 nm range , Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 221102

    2016

  60. [68]

    Liu, R.-S

    Y.-C. Liu, R.-S. Liu, C.-H. Dong et al., Cooling mechanical resonators to the quantum ground state from room temperature, Phys. Rev. A 91 (2015) 013824

    2015

  61. [69]

    Hosseini, Y

    M. Hosseini, Y. Duan, K.M. Beck et al., Cavity cooling of many atoms , Phys. Rev. Lett. 118 (2017) 183601

    2017

  62. [70]

    Particle Data Groupcollaboration, Review of particle physics , Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) 030001

    2018

  63. [71]

    Hood, H.J

    C.J. Hood, H.J. Kimble and J. Ye, Characterization of high-finesse mirrors: Loss, phase shifts, and mode structure in an optical cavity , Phys. Rev. A 64 (2001) 033804

    2001

  64. [72]

    Elder, J

    B. Elder, J. Khoury, P. Haslinger et al., Chameleon dark energy and atom interferometry , Phys. Rev. D 94 (2016) 044051

    2016

  65. [73]

    P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, A.-C. Davis et al., Detecting chameleons through casimir force measurements, Phys. Rev. D 76 (2007) 124034

    2007

  66. [74]

    Krause, R.S

    D.E. Krause, R.S. Decca, D. L´ opez et al., Experimental investigation of the casimir force beyond the proximity-force approximation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 98 (2007) 050403. – 15 –

    2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.