Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 2 cited by

Impulse measurements enhanced with squeezed readout light

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Frequency-dependent squeezed light can lower the resolvable impulse of a mechanical sensor below the standard quantum limit, with the ultimate benefit set by the oscillator's quality factor.

desk verdict A clean, self-contained derivation of e^{-r} momentum-threshold scaling for frequency-dependent squeezed readout, with a Q-limited floor; the main caveats are explicit scope conditions, not hidden flaws. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05168 v3 pith:QUQJDROU submitted 2025-02-07 quant-ph hep-exphysics.ins-det

Tsai-Chen Lee , Jacob L. Beckey , Giacomo Marocco , Daniel Carney This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phhep-exphysics.ins-det
keywords squeezedlightfrequency-dependentsqueezingoptomechanicsimpulsesensingstandardquantumlimitmomentumthresholdlevitatednanoparticlesmeasurementnoise
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 asks whether squeezed light can improve the detection of weak, nearly instantaneous momentum kicks on a mechanically suspended sensor. It analyzes two equivalent geometries, a bad-cavity Fabry-Pérot resonator and a harmonically suspended dielectric slab, and argues that frequency-dependent squeezing lowers the quantum force noise at all frequencies away from resonance, whereas frequency-independent squeezing cannot. The central quantitative results are analytic scaling laws: in the strong-coupling regime the momentum threshold falls as $e^{-r}$ times the standard quantum limit, and even with perfect detection there is a lossless floor $\Delta p_{\mathrm{min}} \approx \Delta p_{\mathrm{SQL}}/\sqrt{Q}$ set by the mechanical quality factor. Optical losses soften the squeezing benefit to $e^{-r/2}$ at small efficiency or very strong squeezing but do not eliminate sub-SQL operation. If these scalings hold, levitated and cavity optomechanical detectors have a concrete route to quantum-enhanced impulse sensing.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the force power spectral density $S_{FF}(\nu)$ of the estimator $F_E = Y^{\mathrm{out}}/\chi_{YF}$, whose inverse is integrated over all frequencies to form the momentum threshold. Squeezed light changes the input quadrature variances and, crucially, makes the cross-correlation $S_{XY}$ nonzero and negative over a chosen bandwidth; frequency-dependent squeezing picks the angle $\theta_*(\nu)$ that minimizes $S_{FF}(\nu)$ at every frequency. The paper proves a correspondence between a bad cavity and a free-space dielectric slab, showing their output phase quadratures have the same functional form, so one calculation covers both systems. The matched-filter SNR integral is then evaluated in the large-$Q$, strong-coupling limit to yield both the exponential improvement and the quality-factor floor.

What would settle it

Measure the momentum threshold of a high-$Q$ suspended oscillator as a function of squeezing strength $r$ at near-unit detection efficiency and with coupling $g$ in the plateau regime $e^r g_* \ll g \ll \sqrt{Q}g_*$; if the threshold does not fall as $e^{-r}$ toward a floor $\Delta p_{\mathrm{SQL}}/\sqrt{Q}$, or if it falls below that floor, the central PSD or the fluctuation-dissipation assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that frequency-dependent squeezed readout can push the resolvable impulse of a damped harmonic oscillator below the coherent-state SQL. Working from the input-output relation for the output phase quadrature, the paper obtains the force power spectral density minimized at each frequency by the optimal squeezing angle $\theta_*(\nu)$, and evaluates the momentum threshold $\Delta p = [\int d\nu/(2\pi S_{FF}(\nu))]^{-1/2}$. In the regime $e^{r} g_*(\omega_m) \ll g \ll \sqrt{Q} g_*(\omega_m)$, the threshold is $\Delta p = e^{-r}[(g^2 + g_*^2(\omega_m)e^{2r})/g^2]^{1/2} \Delta p_{\mathrm{SQL}} + O(\tilde{g}^2/Q)$, so choosing $g \gg e^r g_*$ recovers $\Delta p \approx e^{-r}\Delta p_{\mathrm{SQL}}$. The same large-$Q$ expansion breaks down when $e^{2r} \sim Q$, and a separate large-$r$ integration gives the lossless floor $\Delta p_{\min} \approx \Delta p_{\mathrm{SQL}}/\sqrt{Q}$, which the authors attribute to the dissipative part $\gamma$ of the mechanical response. With photodetection efficiency $\eta$, the analytic scalings become $\eta^{-1/4}e^{-r/2}\Delta p_{\mathrm{SQL}}$ at small $\eta$ and $[1+(1-\eta)e^{2r}]^{1/4}e^{-r}\Delta p_{\mathrm{SQL}}$ near unit efficiency.

Load-bearing premise

The results assume the only mechanical noise is the zero-temperature fluctuation-dissipation floor $S_{FF}=m\gamma\nu$ and that, in the slab model, the forward-scattered light carries no position information ($f=0$); both are idealizations, and extra damping or 3D scattering would raise the floor and change the scaling.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • With 10 dB of frequency-dependent squeezing the plateau-regime threshold is about $e^{-1.15} \approx 0.32$ times the SQL, so the same detector sees kicks roughly three times smaller before losses or the $Q$ floor intervene.
  • The lossless floor $\Delta p_{\min} = \Delta p_{\mathrm{SQL}}/\sqrt{Q}$ makes the mechanical quality factor a direct sensitivity parameter: raising $Q$ by a factor of 4 doubles the best possible squeezing benefit.
  • On resonance the force noise remains pinned at the SQL, and the coupling needed to reach that point grows as $e^{2r}g_*^2$, so the power budget for squeezing is set by how far one wants to push off-resonance suppression.
  • If photodetection is imperfect, the benefit degrades from $e^{-r}$ to $e^{-r/2}$ at large $(1-\eta)e^{2r}$, but sub-SQL thresholds survive, so squeezed readout remains useful even with substantial loss.
  • Because the bad-cavity and dielectric-slab output quadratures coincide, any experimental realization of one system inherits the optimal squeezing angle and the scaling laws of the other.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's own caveats imply that its 1D Markovian slab, which sets the forward-scattering coupling $f=0$, is optimistic for a 3D nanosphere: real detectors cannot collect all $4\pi$ of scattered light, so an effective efficiency $\eta<1$ will force the large-squeezing scaling toward $e^{-r/2}$ rather than $e^{-r}$.
  • If additional environmental or feedback damping contributes beyond the zero-temperature floor $m\gamma\nu$, the Q-limited floor becomes a best case; the same dissipative argument suggests the plateau height is set by the total damping rate actually present.
  • A sharp, testable signature of the theory is the crossover in the slope of $\log(\Delta p)$ versus $r$ from $-1$ to $-1/2$ as $(1-\eta)e^{2r}$ crosses unity; measuring this crossover at fixed $\eta$ would isolate the loss mechanism.
  • The broadband-integral logic should extend to other transient signals such as short force bursts or chirped waveforms, for which frequency-dependent squeezing would likewise beat frequency-independent squeezing; the paper does not evaluate those templates.
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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes impulse (delta-function force) sensing with harmonically suspended optomechanical detectors, using frequency-dependent squeezed readout. It derives the momentum threshold scaling Δp ~ e^{-r} in an intermediate-coupling window, a Q-limited floor Δp_min ≈ Δp_SQL/√Q for lossless measurement, and loss-modified scalings e^{-r/2} for small detection efficiency. The model is developed for a Fabry-Pérot cavity in the bad-cavity limit and a 1D dielectric slab, with the mapping between them established in App. D.

Significance. The e^{-r} scaling and the Q-floor are concrete, falsifiable predictions with direct relevance to levitated optomechanical sensors. The paper is careful to state scope conditions (zero-temperature FDT floor, Markov f=0 approximation), and the central analytical results are cross-checked numerically in Figs. 6 and 7(b). The connection to known limits on dissipative measurements grounds the result in the existing literature.

minor comments (5)
  1. [II A, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) has a typo: the right-hand side should sum over input operators Oin_j, not output operators Oout_j; as written the relation is circular.
  2. [III B, Eq. (32)] The derivation of the central floor Δp_min ≈ Δp_SQL/√Q is compressed into a single sentence ("one can fully do the integration..."). Please provide the explicit integral (or a supplementary appendix) so that the large-r expansion and the condition e^{2r} ~ Q can be checked; the numerical check in Fig. 6 is reassuring but does not replace the analytic derivation.
  3. [IV B, Eq. (42)] In the sentence following Eq. (42), "the shot noise is dominated by the losses, which may be mitigated by increasing the laser power, which in turn may be mitigated by squeezing the back-action" is confusing; suggest rewording to clarify that increasing power raises back-action, which is then reduced by squeezing.
  4. [I, II A, Fig. 2, App. B, Acknowledgements] There are several typos: "show noise" should be "shot noise" in Sec. I; "diectric" should be "dielectric" in Sec. II A; "loser power" should be "laser power" in the Fig. 2 caption; "derive derive" appears in App. B; "dicussions" should be "discussions" in the Acknowledgements.
  5. [III B, Eq. (31)] In Eq. (31), state explicitly that the plateau condition is e^{2r} ~ Q, which clarifies the break-down of the large-Q expansion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (27) and Eq. (32) are derived analytically from the stated input-output model and explicit mγν fluctuation-dissipation floor, not from a fit or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central claims are derived in-line from the stated model. Eq. (27) is obtained by inserting the frequency-dependent optimal squeezing angle into the force PSD, expanding in g/g*(ωm) and √Q, and performing an integral of the same quartic form as Eq. (18); Eq. (32) follows from the large-r expansion of the same integral when e^{2r} ~ Q. The only added noise floor is S_FF^QN = mγν, which is derived from the fluctuation-dissipation theorem in App. C and stated explicitly as an assumption throughout; the Q-limited floor is therefore a consequence of that input, not a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction. The matched-filter and momentum-threshold formalism is re-derived in Sec. II B rather than imported, so citations to Refs. [12,27] are not load-bearing. The dielectric-slab model's Markov approximation (f = 0) is stated as a simplifying constraint, and its 3D limitation is explicitly noted in App. D and the Outlook. Losses are treated by a standard beamsplitter model with analytic asymptotics that match numerical integration. No step reduces to its own input by construction.

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

No data are fitted to produce the scaling laws; the parameters in Table I are representative experimental inputs from the cited literature. The paper introduces no new entities; the relevant resource is an input quantum state, squeezed light, not a new postulated degree of freedom.

assumptions (5)
  • standard math Input-output formalism with linear susceptibilities and stationary noise is valid for the measurement.
    Used throughout Sec. II A; standard quantum optomechanics as in Refs. [12,33].
  • domain assumption The quantized test mass contributes minimum force noise S_FF^QN = mγν via the fluctuation-dissipation theorem in the zero-temperature, linear-response limit.
    App. C, Eq. (C6), and set 'throughout' in Sec. II A; this noise produces the Q-limited floor in Eq. (32).
  • domain assumption The dielectric slab is treated in 1D with the Markov approximation f=0, so forward-scattered light contains no position information.
    App. D, Eq. (D40) and surrounding text; the 3D nanosphere case would have nonzero f and finite collection losses.
  • domain assumption The squeezing amplitude r is frequency-independent over the detection band; only the squeezing angle θ(ν) varies with frequency.
    Sec. III B and App. B Eq. (B13); this restricts the optimization and is load-bearing for the e^{-r} scaling.
  • standard math Asymptotic expansions assume large Q and large coupling g >> e^r g*(ωm), with numerics confirming the regimes.
    Eqs. (26)-(27) and Fig. 6; the fundamental floor is obtained by crossing the boundary of these expansions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Impulse measurements enhanced with squeezed readout light." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QUQJDROU

@misc{pith2026250205168,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Impulse measurements enhanced with squeezed readout light},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QUQJDROU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05168}
}
read the original abstract

We quantify how squeezed light can reduce quantum measurement noise to levels below the standard quantum limit in impulse measurements with mechanical detectors. The broadband nature of the signal implies that frequency-dependent squeezing performs better than frequency-independent squeezing. We calculate the optimal scaling of the impulse sensitivity with the squeezing strength, and quantify degradations due to photodetection losses. Even for lossless measurement, we find there exists a fundamental limit to the benefit of squeezing that depends only on the system's mechanical properties.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05168 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) A canonical example of an optomechanical sensor is the Fabry-P´erot cavity – comprised of two parallel mirrors, one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. (a) The contribution of quantum measurement noise to the force PSD as given in (17), assuming vacuum-limited [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. (a) The force PSD for a dielectric slab without squeezing, with 10 dB of frequency-independent squeezing with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The optimal squeezing angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) PSD of the suspended slab with the optimal frequency dependent squeezing. We show the PSDs without squeezing, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. The scaling of ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. (a) The impulse threshold for a dielectric slab as a function of the laser power, where we include the effects of loss. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The PSDs of the force estimator for an optomechanical cavity in the bad cavity (left) and good cavity (right) limits. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Towards the Direct Detection of Composite Ultraheavy Dark Matter in Quantum Sensor Arrays

    hep-ph 2025-12 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    A quantum sensor array could be sensitive to Planck-mass composite dark matter with radii around a centimeter via Yukawa forces, with a signal that scales as λ² instead of exponentially for short screening lengths.

  2. Searching for Ultralight Dark Matter with MOLeQuTE: a Massive Optically Levitated Quantum Tabletop Experiment

    hep-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    A proposed optically levitated milligram-scale plate sensor could reach the standard quantum limit and probe new parameter space for ultralight B-L vector dark matter.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 45 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Advanced LIGO: the next generation of gravitational wave detectors,

    LIGO Collaboration, G. M. Harry et al., “Advanced LIGO: the next generation of gravitational wave detectors,” Classical and Quantum Gravity27 no. 8, (2010) 084006

    work page 2010

  2. [2]

    Detector configuration of KAGRA–the Japanese cryogenic gravitational-wave detector,

    KAGRA Collaboration, K. Somiya, “Detector configuration of KAGRA–the Japanese cryogenic gravitational-wave detector,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 29 no. 12, (2012) 124007

    2012

  3. [3]

    Advanced VIRGO: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,

    VIRGO Collaboration, F. Acernese et al., “Advanced VIRGO: a second-generation interferometric gravitational wave detector,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 32 no. 2, (2014) 024001

    2014

  4. [4]

    B. M. Brubaker, First results from the HAYSTAC axion search. PhD thesis, Yale U., 2017. arXiv:1801.00835 [astro-ph.CO]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Searching for dark matter with a superconducting qubit,

    A. V. Dixit, S. Chakram, K. He, A. Agrawal, R. K. Naik, D. I. Schuster, and A. Chou, “Searching for dark matter with a superconducting qubit,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (Apr, 2021) 141302

    2021

  6. [6]

    Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer,

    C. M. Caves, “Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer,” Phys. Rev. D23 (Apr, 1981) 1693–1708

    work page 1981

  7. [7]

    Enhanced sensitivity of the ligo gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light,

    J. Aasi, J. Abadie, B. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari, et al., “Enhanced sensitivity of the ligo gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light,” Nature Photonics 7 no. 8, (2013) 613–619

    2013

  8. [8]

    Frequency-dependent squeezing for advanced ligo,

    L. McCuller et al., “Frequency-dependent squeezing for advanced ligo,” Phys. Rev. Lett.124 (Apr, 2020) 171102

    work page 2020

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    A quantum enhanced search for dark matter axions,

    K. M. Backes, D. A. Palken, S. A. Kenany, B. M. Brubaker, S. Cahn, A. Droster, G. C. Hilton, S. Ghosh, H. Jackson, S. K. Lamoreaux, et al., “A quantum enhanced search for dark matter axions,” Nature 590 no. 7845, (2021) 238–242

    2021

  2. [10]

    Squeezed vacuum used to accelerate the search for a weak classical signal,

    M. Malnou, D. A. Palken, B. M. Brubaker, L. R. Vale, G. C. Hilton, and K. W. Lehnert, “Squeezed vacuum used to accelerate the search for a weak classical signal,” Phys. Rev. X9 (May, 2019) 021023. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevX.9.021023

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Combining quantum noise reduction resources: a practical approach,

    S. Ghosh, M. A. Feldman, S. Hong, C. E. Marvinney, A. M. Marino, R. C. Pooser, and J. M. Taylor, “Combining quantum noise reduction resources: a practical approach,” arXiv:2211.14460 [quant-ph]

    arXiv

  4. [12]

    Quantum measurements in fundamental physics: a user’s manual,

    J. Beckey, D. Carney, and G. Marocco, “Quantum measurements in fundamental physics: a user’s manual,” arXiv:2311.07270 [hep-ph]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Cooling of a levitated nanoparticle to the motional quantum ground state,

    U. Deli´ c, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V. Vuleti´ c, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, “Cooling of a levitated nanoparticle to the motional quantum ground state,” Science 367 no. 6480, (2020) 892–895

    2020

  6. [14]

    Quantum control of a nanoparticle optically levitated in cryogenic free space,

    F. Tebbenjohanns, M. L. Mattana, M. Rossi, M. Frimmer, and L. Novotny, “Quantum control of a nanoparticle optically levitated in cryogenic free space,” Nature 595 no. 7867, (2021) 378–382

    2021

  7. [15]

    Real-time optimal quantum control of mechanical motion at room temperature,

    L. Magrini, P. Rosenzweig, C. Bach, A. Deutschmann-Olek, S. G. Hofer, S. Hong, N. Kiesel, A. Kugi, and M. Aspelmeyer, “Real-time optimal quantum control of mechanical motion at room temperature,” Nature 595 no. 7867, (July, 2021) 373–377

    2021

  8. [16]

    Two-dimensional quantum motion of a levitated nanosphere,

    A. Ranfagni, K. Børkje, F. Marino, and F. Marin, “Two-dimensional quantum motion of a levitated nanosphere,” Physical Review Research4 no. 3, (2022) 033051

    2022

  9. [17]

    Optical cold damping of neutral nanoparticles near the ground state in an optical lattice,

    M. Kamba, R. Shimizu, and K. Aikawa, “Optical cold damping of neutral nanoparticles near the ground state in an optical lattice,” Optics Express 30 no. 15, (2022) 26716–26727

    2022

  10. [18]

    Search for Millicharged Particles Using Optically Levitated Microspheres,

    D. C. Moore, A. D. Rider, and G. Gratta, “Search for Millicharged Particles Using Optically Levitated Microspheres,” Physical Review Letters113 no. 25, (Dec., 2014) 251801

    2014

  11. [19]

    Force and acceleration sensing with optically levitated nanogram masses at microkelvin temperatures,

    F. Monteiro, W. Li, G. Afek, C.-l. Li, M. Mossman, and D. C. Moore, “Force and acceleration sensing with optically levitated nanogram masses at microkelvin temperatures,” Phys. Rev. A101 no. 5, (2020) 053835, arXiv:2001.10931 [physics.optics]

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Searching for new physics using optically levitated sensors,

    D. C. Moore and A. A. Geraci, “Searching for new physics using optically levitated sensors,” Quantum Science and Technology6 no. 1, (Jan., 2021) 014008, arXiv:2008.13197 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Search for non-Newtonian interactions at micrometer scale with a levitated test mass,

    C. P. Blakemore, A. Fieguth, A. Kawasaki, N. Priel, D. Martin, A. D. Rider, Q. Wang, and G. Gratta, “Search for non-Newtonian interactions at micrometer scale with a levitated test mass,” Physical Review D 104 no. 6, (Sept., 2021) L061101

    2021

  14. [22]

    Levitodynamics: Levitation and control of microscopic objects in vacuum,

    C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, M. Aspelmeyer, L. Novotny, R. Quidant, and O. Romero-Isart, “Levitodynamics: Levitation and control of microscopic objects in vacuum,” Science 374 no. 6564, (Oct, 2021)

    2021

  15. [23]

    Continuous force and displacement measurement below the standard quantum limit,

    D. Mason, J. Chen, M. Rossi, Y. Tsaturyan, and A. Schliesser, “Continuous force and displacement measurement below the standard quantum limit,” 12 Nature Physics 15 no. 8, (2019) 745–749

    2019

  16. [24]

    Search for composite dark matter with optically levitated sensors,

    F. Monteiro, G. Afek, D. Carney, G. Krnjaic, J. Wang, and D. C. Moore, “Search for composite dark matter with optically levitated sensors,” Phys. Rev. Lett.125 no. 18, (2020) 181102, arXiv:2007.12067 [hep-ex]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Searches for Massive Neutrinos with Mechanical Quantum Sensors,

    D. Carney, K. G. Leach, and D. C. Moore, “Searches for Massive Neutrinos with Mechanical Quantum Sensors,” PRX Quantum 4 no. 1, (2023) 010315, arXiv:2207.05883 [hep-ex]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Quantum-limited position detection and amplification: A linear response perspective,

    A. A. Clerk, “Quantum-limited position detection and amplification: A linear response perspective,” Physical Review B 70 no. 24, (Dec., 2004) 245306

    2004

  19. [27]

    Backaction-evading impulse measurement with mechanical quantum sensors,

    S. Ghosh, D. Carney, P. Shawhan, and J. M. Taylor, “Backaction-evading impulse measurement with mechanical quantum sensors,” Phys. Rev. A102 (Aug,

  20. [28]

    Quantum noise in the interferometer detector,

    W. G. Unruh, “Quantum noise in the interferometer detector,” in Quantum Optics, experimental gravity, and measurement theory, p. 647–660. Plenum Press, 1983

    1983

  21. [29]

    Conversion of conventional gravitational-wave interferometers into quantum nondemolition interferometers by modifying their input and/or output optics,

    H. J. Kimble, Y. Levin, A. B. Matsko, K. S. Thorne, and S. P. Vyatchanin, “Conversion of conventional gravitational-wave interferometers into quantum nondemolition interferometers by modifying their input and/or output optics,” Phys. Rev. D65 (Dec, 2001) 022002

    2001

  22. [30]

    Broadband quantum enhancement of the ligo detectors with frequency-dependent squeezing,

    D. Ganapathy et al., “Broadband quantum enhancement of the ligo detectors with frequency-dependent squeezing,” Physical Review X13 no. 4, (2023) 041021

    2023

  23. [31]

    Mechanical Detection of Nuclear Decays,

    J. Wang, T. W. Penny, J. Recoaro, B. Siegel, Y.-H. Tseng, and D. C. Moore, “Mechanical Detection of Nuclear Decays,” Physical Review Letters133 no. 2, (July, 2024) 023602

    2024

  24. [32]

    Optomechanics with levitated particles,

    J. Millen, T. S. Monteiro, R. Pettit, and A. N. Vamivakas, “Optomechanics with levitated particles,” Reports on Progress in Physics83 no. 2, (Jan., 2020) 026401

    2020

  25. [33]

    W. P. Bowen and G. J. Milburn, Quantum Optomechanics. CRC Press, 2016

    2016

  26. [34]

    Template matching: Matched spatial filters and beyond,

    R. Brunelli and T. Poggiot, “Template matching: Matched spatial filters and beyond,” Pattern recognition 30 no. 5, (1997) 751–768

    1997

  27. [35]

    Matched filtering of gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries: Computational cost and template placement,

    B. J. Owen and B. S. Sathyaprakash, “Matched filtering of gravitational waves from inspiraling compact binaries: Computational cost and template placement,” Physical Review D60 no. 2, (1999) 022002

    1999

  28. [36]

    Experimental characterization of frequency-dependent squeezed light,

    S. Chelkowski, H. Vahlbruch, B. Hage, A. Franzen, N. Lastzka, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, “Experimental characterization of frequency-dependent squeezed light,” Physical Review A71 no. 1, (Jan.,

  29. [37]

    Frequency-Dependent Squeezing from a Detuned Squeezer,

    J. Junker, D. Wilken, N. Johny, D. Steinmeyer, and M. Heurs, “Frequency-Dependent Squeezing from a Detuned Squeezer,” Physical Review Letters129 no. 3, (July, 2022) 033602

    2022

  30. [38]

    Proposal for gravitational-wave detection beyond the standard quantum limit through epr entanglement,

    Y. Ma, H. Miao, B. H. Pang, M. Evans, C. Zhao, J. Harms, R. Schnabel, and Y. Chen, “Proposal for gravitational-wave detection beyond the standard quantum limit through epr entanglement,” Nature Physics 13 no. 8, (2017) 776–780

    2017

  31. [39]

    Overcoming the Standard Quantum Limit in Gravitational Wave Detectors Using Spin Systems with a Negative Effective Mass,

    F. Ya. Khalili and E. S. Polzik, “Overcoming the Standard Quantum Limit in Gravitational Wave Detectors Using Spin Systems with a Negative Effective Mass,” Physical Review Letters121 no. 3, (July, 2018) 031101

    2018

  32. [40]

    Gravitational wave detection beyond the standard quantum limit using a negative-mass spin system and virtual rigidity,

    E. Zeuthen, E. S. Polzik, and F. Y. Khalili, “Gravitational wave detection beyond the standard quantum limit using a negative-mass spin system and virtual rigidity,” Physical Review D100 no. 6, (Sept.,

  33. [41]

    High-q magnetic levitation and control of superconducting microspheres at millikelvin temperatures,

    J. Hofer, R. Gross, G. Higgins, H. Huebl, O. F. Kieler, R. Kleiner, D. Koelle, P. Schmidt, J. A. Slater, M. Trupke, et al., “High-q magnetic levitation and control of superconducting microspheres at millikelvin temperatures,” Physical Review Letters131 no. 4, (2023) 043603

    2023

  34. [42]

    Observation of squeezed light with 10-db quantum-noise reduction,

    H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, S. Chelkowski, B. Hage, A. Franzen, N. Lastzka, S. Gossler, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, “Observation of squeezed light with 10-db quantum-noise reduction,” Physical review letters100 no. 3, (2008) 033602

    2008

  35. [43]

    Detection of 15 db squeezed states of light and their application for the absolute calibration of photoelectric quantum efficiency,

    H. Vahlbruch, M. Mehmet, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, “Detection of 15 db squeezed states of light and their application for the absolute calibration of photoelectric quantum efficiency,” Physical review letters 117 no. 11, (2016) 110801

    2016

  36. [44]

    Quantum limits in interferometric measurements,

    M. T. Jaekel and S. Reynaud, “Quantum limits in interferometric measurements,” Europhysics Letters13 no. 4, (1990) 301

    1990

  37. [45]

    V. B. Braginsky and F. Y. Khalili, Quantum measurement. Cambridge University Press, 1995

    1995

  38. [46]

    Quantum measurement theory in gravitational-wave detectors,

    S. L. Danilishin and F. Y. Khalili, “Quantum measurement theory in gravitational-wave detectors,” Living Reviews in Relativity15 (2012) 1–147

    2012

  39. [47]

    Fundamental quantum limit to waveform estimation,

    M. Tsang, H. M. Wiseman, and C. M. Caves, “Fundamental quantum limit to waveform estimation,” Physical review letters106 no. 9, (2011) 090401

    2011

  40. [48]

    Towards the fundamental quantum limit of linear measurements of classical signals,

    H. Miao, R. X. Adhikari, Y. Ma, B. Pang, and Y. Chen, “Towards the fundamental quantum limit of linear measurements of classical signals,” Physical review letters 119 no. 5, (2017) 050801

    2017

  41. [49]

    Linear amplifiers and attenuators,

    H. Fearn, “Linear amplifiers and attenuators,” Quantum Optics: Journal of the European Optical Society Part B2 no. 2, (1990) 103

    1990

  42. [50]

    Quantum physics of simple optical instruments,

    U. Leonhardt, “Quantum physics of simple optical instruments,” Reports on Progress in Physics66 no. 7, (2003) 1207

    2003

  43. [51]

    Quantum delocalization of a levitated nanoparticle,

    M. Rossi, A. Militaru, N. C. Zambon, A. Riera-Campeny, O. Romero-Isart, M. Frimmer, and L. Novotny, “Quantum delocalization of a levitated nanoparticle,” 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.01264

    2024 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Strong squeezing by repeated frequency jumps,

    J. Janszky and P. Adam, “Strong squeezing by repeated frequency jumps,” Phys. Rev. A46 (Nov, 1992) 6091–6092. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.46.6091

    1992 doi

  45. [53]

    Pulsed quantum optomechanics,

    M. R. Vanner, I. Pikovski, G. D. Cole, M. S. Kim, ˇC. Brukner, K. Hammerer, G. J. Milburn, and M. Aspelmeyer, “Pulsed quantum optomechanics,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences108 no. 39, (2011) 16182–16187

    2011

  46. [54]

    The fluctuation-dissipation theorem,

    R. Kubo, “The fluctuation-dissipation theorem,” Reports on Progress in Physics29 no. 1, (Jan., 1966) 255

    1966

  47. [55]

    Unification of Thermal and Quantum Noises in Gravitational-Wave Detectors,

    C. Whittle, L. McCuller, V. Sudhir, and M. Evans, “Unification of Thermal and Quantum Noises in Gravitational-Wave Detectors,” Phys. Rev. Lett.130 13 no. 24, (2023) 241401, arXiv:2301.00338 [astro-ph.IM]

    2023 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Optically levitating dielectrics in the quantum regime: Theory and protocols,

    O. Romero-Isart, A. C. Pflanzer, M. L. Juan, R. Quidant, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer, and J. I. Cirac, “Optically levitating dielectrics in the quantum regime: Theory and protocols,” Physical Review A83 no. 1, (2011) 013803

    2011

  49. [57]

    Quantum theory of light interaction with a Lorenz-Mie particle: Optical detection and three-dimensional ground-state cooling,

    P. Maurer, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, and O. Romero-Isart, “Quantum theory of light interaction with a Lorenz-Mie particle: Optical detection and three-dimensional ground-state cooling,” Phys. Rev. A 108 no. 3, (2023) 033714, arXiv:2212.04838 [physics.optics]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Suppressing Recoil Heating in Levitated Optomechanics Using Squeezed Light,

    C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, J. Zieli´ nska, M. Rossi, A. Militaru, M. Frimmer, L. Novotny, P. Maurer, and O. Romero-Isart, “Suppressing Recoil Heating in Levitated Optomechanics Using Squeezed Light,” PRX Quantum 4 no. 3, (Sept., 2023) 030331. Appendix A: Conventions We take the f...

    2023

  51. [60]

    In practice, the trapping poten- tial could be formed by a mechanical suspension system, as depicted in Fig

    Impulse sensing with a harmonically trapped dielectric slab We will consider a planar dielectric slab suspended har- monically in free space. In practice, the trapping poten- tial could be formed by a mechanical suspension system, as depicted in Fig. 1(b), or it could be suppl...

  52. [61]

    Recall Eqs

    Mapping between cavity optomechanics and dielectric slab In this appendix, we show how the dynamics of light interacting with a lossy (large κ) optomechanical cavity may be mapped on to the interaction with a dielectric slab. Recall Eqs. (B7) and (D39) for output phase of ligh...

  53. [2020]

    https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.023525

    023525. https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.102.023525

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.