Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 93 references

Optical Levitation of Arrays of Microspheres

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that one rapidly steered laser beam can trap a defect-free array of 25 microspheres in vacuum, with each sphere independently controllable and all motions measurable at sub-nanometer sensitivity.

desk verdict Solid 25-sphere levitated array demonstration with independent control and sub-nm tracking; the 100-trap scaling claim is the real soft spot, but it is a projection, not the result. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.07088 v1 pith:KCWJFVJQ submitted 2024-12-10 physics.optics

Benjamin Siegel , Gadi Afek , Cecily Lowe , Jiaxiang Wang , Yu-Han Tseng , T. W. Penny , David C. Moore This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.optics
keywords opticallevitationmicrospherearraystime-sharedtrapsacousto-opticdeflectorback-focal-planeinterferometrycamera-basedtrackingdefect-freearrayassemblylevitatedoptomechanics
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

Levitated optomechanics has been a single-sensor technology; this paper tries to make it an array technology. It demonstrates that a single 1064 nm beam, time-shared by an acousto-optic deflector, can hold a defect-free 5x5 grid of 10.8 um silica microspheres in vacuum while giving independent control of each trap. It also shows simultaneous readout of all spheres: camera-based tracking reaches displacement sensitivity below $1\ \mathrm{nm}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$, and a single quadrant photodiode can time-multiplex all positions. If these techniques scale to the projected roughly 100 traps, arrays of levitated sensors become practical for rejecting correlated noise and for detecting rare or weak interactions such as low-mass dark matter.

What carries the argument

The carrying mechanism is the time-shared pseudo-continuous trap: a two-dimensional acousto-optic deflector illuminated by one 1064 nm beam writes one trap at a time, and an FPGA cycles through the sites; because the cycle rate far exceeds the spheres' 30–100 Hz resonances, the spheres see effectively static traps while each site's position and power can be changed independently. The readout machinery is back-focal-plane interferometry, in which all parallel trapping beams converge to a single spot on a quadrant photodiode, so one detector serves the whole array and the time-sharing itself demultiplexes the signals. For camera imaging, three tracking algorithms are compared, with the eigenframe translation analysis and a trained convolutional neural network providing the best displacement noise floor. Assembly is carried by an offline sorting routine that uses the Hungarian assignment algorithm and collision-checked paths to rearrange spheres into arbitrary defect-free geometries, and a corona-discharge neutralization step reduces sphere charge so Coulomb forces do not overwhelm the optical traps during loading.

What would settle it

Operate an array at the projected ~1.5 kHz cycle rate for 100 traps in vacuum and look at a single sphere's amplitude spectral density with high-bandwidth readout: a resolved peak at the cycling frequency, or an increase in loss or heating as the cycle rate approaches the 30–100 Hz resonances, would show that the pseudo-continuous trap assumption fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that time-shared optical trapping—cycling one laser beam through AOD-defined sites so fast that each site acts as a continuous trap—enables scalable, independent control of levitated microsphere arrays in vacuum. With this method the authors trap, load, sort, and monitor a 5x5 array of 25 silica microspheres (10.8 um diameter) at 57 um spacing, create arbitrary two-dimensional geometries, and rearrange partially filled arrays into dense defect-free grids without losing spheres. During loading the cycle rate is 500 Hz; for 100 traps the projected rate exceeds 1.5 kHz, well above the 30–100 Hz center-of-mass resonances of the gravito-optical traps. All 25 spheres' motions are reconstructed at 1000 frames per second, with eigenframe and neural-network tracking reaching displacement sensitivities below $1\ \mathrm{nm}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$, and neighbor correlations are measured as a function of array spacing.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a briefly and repeatedly illuminated trap is equivalent to a continuously illuminated one: the time-shared cycle rate is far above the 30–100 Hz mechanical resonances, but the paper gives no quantitative stability model for this pseudo-continuous approximation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Up to roughly 10x10 microspheres can be held in vacuum with independent optical potentials at each site, so array size is no longer limited by one beam per particle.
  • A single quadrant photodiode can time-multiplex position signals from all spheres, removing the need for one detector and readout chain per particle.
  • Camera-based tracking with eigenframe or neural-network analysis gives sub-nanometer displacement sensitivity, providing a practical route to simultaneous closed-loop feedback on many spheres.
  • Measured nearest-neighbor correlations can be minimized by operating at spacings above 100 um and by controlling residual charge, so low-crosstalk sensing arrays are realistic.
  • Array scaling increases total sensor mass and cross section, which is exactly what rare-interaction searches such as low-mass dark matter detection require.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the pseudo-continuous approximation remains valid at 100 traps, time-sharing could be combined with frequency-comb AOD excitation to reach even larger arrays; the crossover where cycle-rate micromotion limits sensitivity still needs direct measurement.
  • Beyond the paper: because the CNN tracker is trained on synthetic images and is fast once trained, it could be adapted for real-time camera-based feedback cooling of every sphere simultaneously, reducing reliance on the QPD.
  • Beyond the paper: the pairwise correlations visible at small spacing could be treated as an engineered resource for collective sensing or many-body levitated dynamics, rather than only as crosstalk to suppress.
  • Beyond the paper: the near-unity efficiency of the auxiliary-beam transfer suggests deterministic, atom-array-style assembly of microspheres is within reach, which would replace random filling and make large defect-free arrays routine.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports an experimental platform for optically levitating arrays of silica microspheres in vacuum using a single 1064 nm beam that is time-shared by a two-dimensional acousto-optic deflector. The authors demonstrate arrays of up to 25 microspheres in a 5x5 grid, arbitrary array geometries, independent control of each trap, and a rearrangement algorithm based on the Hungarian method. Simultaneous motion reconstruction of all 25 spheres is performed with camera imaging using three tracking methods, with the CNN and eigenframe methods claimed to reach displacement sensitivities below 1 nm/sqrt(Hz). The paper also demonstrates multiplexed QPD readout for four traps and discusses loading procedures based on corona discharge and auxiliary-beam transfer. The central claims are that the time-sharing approach is scalable to roughly 10x10 arrays and that the camera/QPD techniques enable arrayed levitated sensing.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a significant experimental advance: it roughly doubles or triples the number of levitated particles that can be simultaneously trapped in vacuum compared to previous work, and it adds independent reconfigurability and simultaneous readout. The 25-sphere array is directly demonstrated, the sorting algorithm is a genuine new tool, and the paper clearly describes both the strengths and the acknowledged limitations of the QPD readout. The main significance of the paper is therefore well supported at the level of the 25-element demonstration. However, the quantitative scaling claim to ~100 traps and the stated 1 nm/sqrt(Hz) sensitivity would need additional support to be considered fully established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II A and Sec. III] The abstract claims the techniques are capable of trapping arrays of more than 25 microspheres, but the largest demonstrated array is exactly 25 spheres in Fig. 5. The projection to approximately 10x10 arrays relies on the pseudo-continuous time-sharing approximation, for which the manuscript provides no quantitative stability model. With the quoted 6.2 microsecond dwell time and 100 traps, the cycle rate is about 1.6 kHz, while the instantaneous radial trap frequency during a dwell scales as sqrt(N) times the average radial frequency, giving about 1 kHz for N=100; the needed separation of timescales is therefore marginal in the radial direction. Please add a quantitative analysis (for example a Floquet or Mathieu stability estimate and a heating-rate calculation for the pulsed trap) or revise the scaling claims to what is experimentally demonstrated.
  2. [Sec. II A] There is an internal inconsistency in the discussion of the cycle-rate limit. One paragraph states that for arrays ≳100 microspheres the cycle-rate will eventually introduce noticeable micromotion and limit the array size, while a later paragraph states that for arrays as large as 100 traps, cycle-rates greater than 1.5 kHz are much larger than the resonant frequency and minimize any driven motion. Both statements cannot be simultaneously true without additional qualification. This should be reconciled, either by giving the quantitative condition under which each statement applies or by explicitly labeling the 10x10 projection as speculative.
  3. [Sec. II C and Fig. 4] The sub-1 nm/sqrt(Hz) displacement sensitivity is inferred from the high-frequency noise floor of a single amplitude spectral density, without reported error bars and without an explicit description of the pixel-to-nanometer calibration. Because this sensitivity is a central quantitative claim used to motivate the array-sensing applications, please provide the calibration procedure, the conversion factors, and the uncertainty on the sensitivity estimate. In addition, the CNN is validated only on simulated images; the agreement with the eigenframe method near resonance is reassuring, but it does not substitute for a direct validation of the CNN on experimental data with known displacements.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II B] The QPD multiplexing demonstration is limited to four traps, and the text itself notes that the readout rise time forces the averaging window to exclude part of each dwell time. Consider labeling this explicitly as a proof-of-principle in the abstract or conclusions, rather than implying that full-array QPD readout has been achieved.
  2. [Sec. II C] The statement that the CNN and eigenframe methods reach displacement sensitivities below 1 nm/sqrt(Hz) should specify whether this number is the noise floor of the reconstruction algorithm alone or the combined sensitivity of the optical imaging system, and it should state the measurement bandwidth over which the ASD was evaluated.
  3. [Sec. I] The comparison with prior work cites arrays of up to 9 nanospheres; the distinction between the 10.8-micrometer microspheres used here and the smaller nanospheres used in previous demonstrations is important for mass and sensitivity scaling and could be stated more explicitly for readers outside the levitated-optomechanics niche.
  4. [Fig. 3] The figure caption and text do not state the dwell time and cycle rate used for the four-trap QPD demonstration; providing these numbers would help the reader connect the multiplexing demonstration to the loading parameters discussed in Sec. II A.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the paper's claims are supported by direct experimental measurements and independent reconstruction methods.

full rationale

The paper is an experimental demonstration rather than a derivation, and I find no step in which a claimed result is assumed by construction, fitted and renamed as a prediction, or justified solely by a load-bearing self-citation. The central experimental claims are (i) trapping and rearranging arrays of up to 25 microspheres in vacuum and (ii) camera-based displacement sensitivity below 1 nm/sqrt(Hz). Both are supported by measured data: the array is directly imaged, and the displacement sensitivity is read from the high-frequency noise floor of the measured amplitude spectral densities, where the sphere motion is suppressed. The CNN is trained on synthetic images, but its result is independently confirmed by the eigenframe method, which does not share that training procedure, so the sensitivity claim does not reduce to the network's own training target. The scalability projection to approximately 10x10 elements rests on a pseudo-continuous time-sharing approximation that is not quantitatively modeled, and the loading and QPD readout sections state their own limitations explicitly; however, an unvalidated assumption or an extrapolation beyond the demonstrated regime is a correctness or engineering risk, not a circularity. No equation in the paper defines a quantity in terms of the quantity it is supposed to predict, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction. Self-citations appear for experimental setup and context, but the load-bearing validation of the array and sensitivity claims is internal and measured. Therefore the appropriate circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard optical trapping techniques, one fitted ML model for tracking, and two domain assumptions about time-shared operation and noise interpretation. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • CNN model weights and hyperparameters = not specified (trained via grid search on simulated images)
    The CNN tracking method is trained on synthetic images with known shifts; the reported validation MSE of 4.9e-4 pixels is on the same simulated distribution, so it is a fitted model rather than an independent physical calibration. The eigenframe method provides independent confirmation of the sensitivity claim.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Time-shared illumination with cycle rate much greater than mechanical resonance forms a stable pseudo-continuous trap.
    Sec II A states this without a quantitative model; it is supported empirically by the 25-sphere demonstration, but the projection to 100 traps relies on the same assumption.
  • domain assumption The high-frequency floor of the amplitude spectral density is dominated by measurement noise, so it can be quoted as displacement sensitivity.
    Sec II C and Fig 4 infer sensitivity from the noise floor where sphere motion is said to be highly suppressed; no independent calibration against a known displacement is shown.
  • domain assumption Observed inter-sphere position correlations are attributed to Coulomb forces and optical beam overlap.
    Sec III states that uncertainty on the electric charge prevents a quantitative simulation, so the attribution is qualitative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Optical Levitation of Arrays of Microspheres." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KCWJFVJQ

@misc{pith2026241207088,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Optical Levitation of Arrays of Microspheres},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KCWJFVJQ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.07088}
}
abstract

Levitated optomechanical systems are rapidly becoming leading tools for precision sensing of forces and accelerations acting on particles in the femtogram to nanogram mass range. These systems enable a high level of control over the sensor's center-of-mass motion, rotational degrees of freedom, and electric charge state. For many sensing applications, extending these techniques to arrays of sensors enables rejection of correlated noise sources and increases sensitivity to interactions that may be too rare or weak to detect with a single particle. Here we present techniques capable of trapping defect free, two-dimensional arrays of more than 25 microspheres in vacuum. These techniques provide independent control of the optical potential for each sphere. Simultaneous imaging of the motion of all spheres in the array is demonstrated using camera-based imaging, with optimized object tracking algorithms reaching a displacement sensitivity below 1 nm/$\surd$Hz. Such arrays of levitated microspheres may find applications ranging from inertial sensing to searches for weakly interacting particles such as dark matter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.07088 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Simplified optical schematic. A two-dimensional acousto-optic deflector (AOD) splits the high powered [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Photographs of trapped microsphere arrays in vacuum. Pictures in column (a) show a demonstration of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Example of data taken with the quadrant photodiode using back focal plane imaging. (a) Unprocessed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Reconstruction of the amplitude spectral [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) Motion of 25 spheres trapped at 0.4 mbar in a 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Correlations of the motion of 25 spheres in a 5 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

93 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Liang, S

    T. Liang, S. Zhu, P. He, Z. Chen, Y. Wang, C. Li, Z. Fu, X. Gao, X. Chen, N. Li, Q. Zhu, and H. Hu, Yoctonew- ton force detection based on optically levitated oscillator, Fundamental Research 3, 57 (2023)

    2023

  2. [2]

    Deli´ c, M

    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, Sci- ence 367, 892 (2020)

    2020

  3. [3]

    Magrini, P

    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, 373 (2021)

    2021

  4. [4]

    Tebbenjohanns, M

    F. Tebbenjohanns, M. L. Mattana, M. Rossi, M. Frim- mer, and L. Novotny, Quantum control of a nanoparticle optically levitated in cryogenic free space, Nature 595, 378 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    Kamba, R

    M. Kamba, R. Shimizu, and K. Aikawa, Optical cold damping of neutral nanoparticles near the ground state in an optical lattice, Opt. Express, OE 30, 26716 (2022)

    2022

  6. [6]

    Ranfagni, K

    A. Ranfagni, K. Børkje, F. Marino, and F. Marin, Two- dimensional quantum motion of a levitated nanosphere, Phys. Rev. Res. 4, 033051 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Piotrowski, D

    J. Piotrowski, D. Windey, J. Vijayan, C. Gonzalez- Ballestero, A. de los R ´ ıos Sommer, N. Meyer, R. Quidant, O. Romero-Isart, R. Reimann, and L. Novotny, Simulta- neous ground-state cooling of two mechanical modes of a levitated nanoparticle, Nat. Phys. 19, 1009 (2023)

    2023

  8. [8]

    Romero-Isart, Quantum superposition of massive ob- jects and collapse models, Phys

    O. Romero-Isart, Quantum superposition of massive ob- jects and collapse models, Phys. Rev. A 84, 052121 (2011)

    2011

Show all 93 references
  1. [9]

    Arndt and K

    M. Arndt and K. Hornberger, Testing the limits of quan- tum mechanical superpositions, Nature Phys 10, 271 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Romero-Isart, A

    O. Romero-Isart, A. C. Pflanzer, F. Blaser, R. Kaltenbaek, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer, and J. I. Cirac, Large Quantum Superpositions and Interference of Massive Nanometer-Sized Objects, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 020405 (2011)

    2011

  3. [11]

    Romero-Isart, A

    O. Romero-Isart, A. C. Pflanzer, M. L. Juan, R. Quidant, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer, and J. I. Cirac, Optically lev- itating dielectrics in the quantum regime: Theory and protocols, Phys. Rev. A 83, 013803 (2011)

    2011

  4. [12]

    Weiss, M

    T. Weiss, M. Roda-Llordes, E. Torrontegui, M. As- pelmeyer, and O. Romero-Isart, Large Quantum Delocal- ization of a Levitated Nanoparticle Using Optimal Con- trol: Applications for Force Sensing and Entangling via Weak Forces, Phys. Rev. Lett. 127, 023601 (2021)

    2021

  5. [13]

    D. C. Moore and A. A. Geraci, Searching for new physics using optically levitated sensors, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 014008 (2021), arXiv:2008.13197 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kawasaki, Search for kilogram-scale dark matter with precision displacement sensors, Phys

    A. Kawasaki, Search for kilogram-scale dark matter with precision displacement sensors, Phys. Rev. D 99, 023005 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Carney, K

    D. Carney, K. G. Leach, and D. C. Moore, Searches for massive neutrinos with mechanical quantum sen- sors, PRX Quantum 4, 010315 (2023), arXiv:2207.05883 [hep-ex, physics:hep-ph, physics:nucl-ex, physics:physics, physics:quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kilian, M

    E. Kilian, M. Rademacher, J. M. H. Gosling, J. H. Iaco- poni, F. Alder, M. Toroˇ s, A. Pontin, C. Ghag, S. Bose, T. S. Monteiro, and P. F. Barker, Dark matter searches with levitated sensors, A VS Quantum Science 6, 030503 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Monteiro, G

    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, 181102 (2020), arXiv: 2007.12067

    2020 arXiv

  10. [18]

    J. Wang, T. Penny, J. Recoaro, B. Siegel, Y.-H. Tseng, and D. C. Moore, Mechanical Detection of Nuclear De- cays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 023602 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Aggarwal, G

    N. Aggarwal, G. P. Winstone, M. Teo, M. Baryakhtar, S. L. Larson, V. Kalogera, and A. A. Geraci, Search- ing for New Physics with a Levitated-Sensor-Based Gravitational-Wave Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 111101 (2022)

    2022

  12. [20]

    Manjavacas and F

    A. Manjavacas and F. J. G. de Abajo, Vacuum friction in rotating particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 113601 (2010), arXiv: 1009.4107

    2010 arXiv

  13. [21]

    R. Zhao, A. Manjavacas, F. J. G. de Abajo, and J. B. Pendry, Rotational Quantum Friction, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 123604 (2012), arXiv: 1208.4232

    2012 arXiv

  14. [22]

    G. Afek, D. Carney, and D. C. Moore, Coherent Scatter- ing of Low Mass Dark Matter from Optically Trapped Sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 101301 (2022)

    2022

  15. [23]

    Carney, A

    D. Carney, A. Hook, Z. Liu, J. M. Taylor, and Y. Zhao, Ultralight dark matter detection with mechanical quan- tum sensors, New J. Phys. 23, 023041 (2021)

    2021

  16. [24]

    A. J. Brady, C. Gao, R. Harnik, Z. Liu, Z. Zhang, and Q. Zhuang, Entangled Sensor-Networks for Dark-Matter Searches, PRX Quantum 3, 030333 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    R. Li, S. Lin, L. Zhang, C. Duan, P. Huang, and J. Du, Search for Ultralight Dark Matter with a Frequency Ad- justable Diamagnetic Levitated Sensor, Chinese Phys. Lett. 40, 069502 (2023)

    2023

  18. [26]

    Higgins, S

    G. Higgins, S. Kalia, and Z. Liu, Maglev for dark matter: Dark-photon and axion dark matter sensing with levi- tated superconductors, Phys. Rev. D 109, 055024 (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    D. W. P. Amaral, D. G. Uitenbroek, T. H. Oosterkamp, and C. D. Tunnell, First Search for Ultralight Dark 9 Matter Using a Magnetically Levitated Particle (2024), arXiv:2409.03814

    2024

  20. [28]

    Yokomizo and Y

    K. Yokomizo and Y. Ashida, Non-Hermitian physics of levitated nanoparticle array, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 033217 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Rudolph, K

    H. Rudolph, K. Hornberger, and B. A. Stickler, En- tangling levitated nanoparticles by coherent scattering, Phys. Rev. A 101, 011804 (2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    A. K. Chauhan, O. ˇCernot ´ ık, and R. Filip, Tuneable Gaussian entanglement in levitated nanoparticle arrays, npj Quantum Inf 8, 1 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    Anderegg, L

    L. Anderegg, L. W. Cheuk, Y. Bao, S. Burchesky, W. Ketterle, K.-K. Ni, and J. M. Doyle, An optical tweezer array of ultracold molecules, Science 365, 1156 (2019)

    2019

  24. [32]

    Scholl, M

    P. Scholl, M. Schuler, H. J. Williams, A. A. Eberharter, D. Barredo, K.-N. Schymik, V. Lienhard, L.-P. Henry, T. C. Lang, T. Lahaye, A. M. L¨ auchli, and A. Browaeys, Quantum simulation of 2D antiferromagnets with hun- dreds of Rydberg atoms, Nature 595, 233 (2021)

    2021

  25. [33]

    S. Ma, A. P. Burgers, G. Liu, J. Wilson, B. Zhang, and J. D. Thompson, Universal Gate Operations on Nuclear Spin Qubits in an Optical Tweezer Array of $ˆ{171}\mathrm{Yb}$ Atoms, Phys. Rev. X 12, 021028 (2022)

    2022

  26. [34]

    K. Kim, M. Kim, J. Park, A. Byun, and J. Ahn, Quantum computing dataset of maximum independent set problem on king lattice of over hundred Rydberg atoms, Sci Data 11, 111 (2024)

    2024

  27. [35]

    Bluvstein, S

    D. Bluvstein, S. J. Evered, A. A. Geim, S. H. Li, H. Zhou, T. Manovitz, S. Ebadi, M. Cain, M. Kali- nowski, D. Hangleiter, J. P. Bonilla Ataides, N. Maskara, I. Cong, X. Gao, P. Sales Rodriguez, T. Karolyshyn, G. Semeghini, M. J. Gullans, M. Greiner, V. Vuleti´ c, and M. D. Lu...

    2024

  28. [36]

    Pause, L

    L. Pause, L. Sturm, M. Mittenb¨ uhler, S. Amann, T. Preuschoff, D. Sch¨ affner, M. Schlosser, and G. Birkl, Supercharged two-dimensional tweezer array with more than 1000 atomic qubits, Optica, OPTICA 11, 222 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    H. J. Manetsch, G. Nomura, E. Bataille, K. H. Leung, X. Lv, and M. Endres, A tweezer array with 6100 highly coherent atomic qubits (2024), arXiv:2403.12021 [quant- ph]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. G. Menon, N. Glachman, M. Pompili, A. Dibos, and H. Bernien, An integrated atom array-nanophotonic chip platform with background-free imaging, Nat Commun 15, 6156 (2024)

    2024

  31. [39]

    Deplano, A

    Q. Deplano, A. Pontin, A. Ranfagni, F. Marino, and F. Marin, Coulomb coupling between two nanospheres trapped in a bichromatic optical tweezer (2024), arXiv:2408.02597

    2024 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Arita, E

    Y. Arita, E. M. Wright, and K. Dholakia, Optical bind- ing of two cooled micro-gyroscopes levitated in vacuum, Optica, OPTICA 5, 910 (2018)

    2018

  33. [41]

    Rieser, M

    J. Rieser, M. A. Ciampini, H. Rudolph, N. Kiesel, K. Hornberger, B. A. Stickler, M. Aspelmeyer, and U. Deli´ c, Tunable light-induced dipole-dipole interaction between optically levitated nanoparticles, Science 377, 987 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Reisenbauer, H

    M. Reisenbauer, H. Rudolph, L. Egyed, K. Hornberger, A. V. Zasedatelev, M. Abuzarli, B. A. Stickler, and U. Deli´ c, Non-Hermitian dynamics and non-reciprocity of optically coupled nanoparticles, Nat. Phys. 20, 1629 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Vijayan, J

    J. Vijayan, J. Piotrowski, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, K. We- ber, O. Romero-Isart, and L. Novotny, Cavity-mediated long-range interactions in levitated optomechanics, Nat. Phys. 20, 859 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    V. Svak, J. Flajˇ smanov´ a, L. Chv´ atal, M.ˇSiler, A. Jon´ aˇ s, J. Jeˇ zek, S. H. Simpson, P. Zem´ anek, and O. Brzobohat´ y, Stochastic dynamics of optically bound matter levitated in vacuum, Optica, OPTICA 8, 220 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    M. Wu, N. Li, H. Cai, and H. Hu, Coupler enabled tun- able dipole-dipole coupling between optically levitated nanoparticles (2024), arXiv:2408.06256

    2024

  38. [46]

    J. Yan, X. Yu, Z. V. Han, T. Li, and J. Zhang, On- demand assembly of optically levitated nanoparticle ar- rays in vacuum, Photon. Res., PRJ 11, 600 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    Liˇ ska, T

    V. Liˇ ska, T. Zem´ ankov´ a, V. Svak, P. J´ akl, J. Jeˇ zek, M. Br´ aneck´ y, S. H. Simpson, P. Zem´ anek, and O. Br- zobohat´ y, Cold damping of levitated optically coupled nanoparticles, Optica, OPTICA 10, 1203 (2023)

    2023

  40. [48]

    Vijayan, Z

    J. Vijayan, Z. Zhang, J. Piotrowski, D. Windey, F. van der Laan, M. Frimmer, and L. Novotny, Scalable all-optical cold damping of levitated nanoparticles, Nat. Nanotechnol. 18, 49 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Arita, G

    Y. Arita, G. D. Bruce, E. M. Wright, S. H. Simpson, P. Zem´ anek, and K. Dholakia, All-optical sub-Kelvin sympathetic cooling of a levitated microsphere in vac- uum, Optica, OPTICA 9, 1000 (2022)

    2022

  42. [50]

    T. W. Penny, A. Pontin, and P. F. Barker, Sympathetic cooling and squeezing of two colevitated nanoparticles, Phys. Rev. Res. 5, 013070 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    D. S. Bykov, L. Dania, F. Goschin, and T. E. Northup, 3D sympathetic cooling and detection of levitated nanoparticles, Optica, OPTICA 10, 438 (2023)

    2023

  44. [52]

    Minowa, K

    Y. Minowa, K. Kato, S. Ueno, T. W. Penny, A. Pon- tin, M. Ashida, and P. F. Barker, Imaging based feed- back cooling of a levitated nanoparticle, Review of Sci- entific Instruments 93, 075109 (2022), arXiv:2204.05506 [physics, physics:quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Y. Ren, E. Benedetto, H. Borrill, Y. Savchuk, M. Mes- sage, K. O’Flynn, M. Rashid, and J. Millen, Event-based imaging of levitated microparticles, Appl. Phys. Lett. 121, 113506 (2022)

    2022

  46. [54]

    Y. Ren, B. Siegel, R. Yin, M. Rashid, and J. Millen, Neu- romorphic detection and cooling of microparticle arrays (2024), arXiv:2408.00661

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    B. R. Slezak and B. D’Urso, A microsphere molecule: The interaction of two charged microspheres in a magneto-gravitational trap, Applied Physics Letters114, 244102 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Sasaki, M

    K. Sasaki, M. Koshioka, H. Misawa, N. K. N. Kitamura, and H. M. H. Masuhara, Laser-Scanning Micromanipu- lation and Spatial Patterning of Fine Particles, Jpn. J. Appl. Phys. 30, L907 (1991)

    1991

  49. [57]

    Sasaki, M

    K. Sasaki, M. Koshioka, H. Misawa, N. Kitamura, and H. Masuhara, Pattern formation and flow control of fine particles by laser-scanning micromanipulation, Opt. Lett., OL 16, 1463 (1991)

    1991

  50. [58]

    Visscher, G

    K. Visscher, G. J. Brakenhoff, and J. J. Krol, Microma- nipulation by ”multiple” optical traps created by a single fast scanning trap integrated with the bilateral confocal scanning laser microscope, Cytometry 14, 105 (1993)

    1993

  51. [59]

    Visscher, S

    K. Visscher, S. Gross, and S. Block, Construction of multiple-beam optical traps with nanometer-resolution 10 position sensing, IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics 2, 1066 (1996), conference Name: IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Quantum Electronics

    1996

  52. [60]

    Monteiro, W

    F. Monteiro, W. Li, G. Afek, C.-l. Li, M. Mossman, and D. C. Moore, Force and acceleration sensing with opti- cally levitated nanogram masses at microkelvin temper- atures, Physical Review A 101, 053835 (2020)

    2020

  53. [61]

    Gittes and C

    F. Gittes and C. F. Schmidt, Interference model for back- focal-plane displacement detection in optical tweezers, Opt. Lett., OL 23, 7 (1998)

    1998

  54. [62]

    Pralle, M

    A. Pralle, M. Prummer, E. L. Florin, E. H. Stelzer, and J. K. H¨ orber, Three-dimensional high-resolution particle tracking for optical tweezers by forward scattered light, Microsc Res Tech 44, 378 (1999)

    1999

  55. [63]

    Farr´ e, F

    A. Farr´ e, F. Mars` a, and M. Montes-Usategui, Optimized back-focal-plane interferometry directly measures forces of optically trapped particles, Opt. Express, OE 20, 12270 (2012)

    2012

  56. [64]

    Mart ´ ınez and D

    I. Mart ´ ınez and D. Petrov, Back-focal-plane position de- tection with extended linear range for photonic force mi- croscopy, Applied optics 51, 5973 (2012)

    2012

  57. [65]

    J. A. Kurvits, M. Jiang, and R. Zia, Comparative analysis of imaging configurations and objectives for Fourier microscopy, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A 32, 2082 (2015), arXiv:1507.04037 [physics]

    2015 arXiv

  58. [66]

    D. Ruh, B. Tr¨ ankle, and A. Rohrbach, Fast parallel in- terferometric 3D tracking of numerous optically trapped particles and their hydrodynamic interaction, Opt. Ex- press, OE 19, 21627 (2011)

    2011

  59. [67]

    Ashkin and J

    A. Ashkin and J. M. Dziedzic, Feedback stabilization of optically levitated particles, Appl. Phys. Lett. 30, 202 (1977)

    1977

  60. [68]

    Ashkin and J

    A. Ashkin and J. M. Dziedzic, Optical Levitation by Ra- diation Pressure, Appl. Phys. Lett. 19, 283 (1971)

    1971

  61. [69]

    Ashkin and J

    A. Ashkin and J. M. Dziedzic, Optical levitation in high vacuum, Appl. Phys. Lett. 28, 333 (1976)

    1976

  62. [70]

    D. C. Moore, A. D. Rider, and G. Gratta, Search for Millicharged Particles Using Optically Levitated Micro- spheres, Physical Review Letters 113, 251801 (2014)

    2014

  63. [71]

    C. P. Blakemore, D. Martin, A. Fieguth, N. Priel, G. Venugopalan, A. Kawasaki, and G. Gratta, Libra- tional feedback cooling, Phys. Rev. A106, 023503 (2022)

    2022

  64. [72]

    G. Afek, F. Monteiro, B. Siegel, J. Wang, S. Dickson, J. Recoaro, M. Watts, and D. C. Moore, Control and measurement of electric dipole moments in levitated op- tomechanics, Physical Review A 104, 053512 (2021)

    2021

  65. [73]

    G. Afek, F. Monteiro, J. Wang, B. Siegel, S. Ghosh, and D. C. Moore, Limits on the abundance of millicharged particles bound to matter, Phys. Rev. D 104, 012004 (2021), arXiv: 2012.08169

    2021 arXiv

  66. [74]

    Monteiro, S

    F. Monteiro, S. Ghosh, E. C. van Assendelft, and D. C. Moore, Optical Rotation of Levitated Spheres in High Vacuum, Physical Review A 97, 051802 (2018)

    2018

  67. [75]

    http://www

    Purchased from Corpuscular, Inc. http://www. microspheres-nanospheres.com/Microspheres/ Inorganic/Silica/SiO220Plain.htm

  68. [76]

    L. P. Ghislain and W. W. Webb, Scanning-force micro- scope based on an optical trap, Opt. Lett., OL 18, 1678 (1993)

    1993

  69. [77]

    L. P. Ghislain, N. A. Switz, and W. W. Webb, Mea- surement of small forces using an optical trap, Review of Scientific Instruments 65, 2762 (1994)

    1994

  70. [78]

    A. B. Vasista, D. K. Sharma, and G. P. Kumar, Fourier Plane Optical Microscopy and Spectroscopy, in digital Encyclopedia of Applied Physics, edited by Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA (Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA, Weinheim, Germany, 2019) pp. 1–14

    2019

  71. [79]

    C. W. Lewandowski, T. D. Knowles, Z. B. Etienne, and B. D’Urso, High-Sensitivity Accelerometry with a Feedback-Cooled Magnetically Levitated Microsphere, Phys. Rev. Applied 15, 014050 (2021)

    2021

  72. [80]

    B. M. Lansdorp, S. J. Tabrizi, A. Dittmore, and O. A. Saleh, A high-speed magnetic tweezer beyond 10,000 frames per second, Review of Scientific Instruments 84, 044301 (2013)

    2013

  73. [81]

    J. C. Crocker and D. G. Grier, Methods of Digital Video Microscopy for Colloidal Studies, Journal of Colloid and Interface Science 179, 298 (1996)

    1996

  74. [82]

    D. B. Allan, T. Caswell, N. C. Keim, C. M. van der Wel, and R. W. Verweij, soft-matter/trackpy: v0.6.4 (2024)

    2024

  75. [83]

    Carleo, I

    G. Carleo, I. Cirac, K. Cranmer, L. Daudet, M. Schuld, N. Tishby, L. Vogt-Maranto, and L. Zdeborov´ a, Machine learning and the physical sciences, Rev. Mod. Phys. 91, 045002 (2019)

    2019

  76. [84]

    Karagiorgi, G

    G. Karagiorgi, G. Kasieczka, S. Kravitz, B. Nachman, and D. Shih, Machine learning in the search for new fun- damental physics, Nat Rev Phys 4, 399 (2022)

    2022

  77. [85]

    Li, Fundamental Tests of Physics with Optically Trapped Microspheres., Ph.D

    T. Li, Fundamental Tests of Physics with Optically Trapped Microspheres., Ph.D. thesis, The University of Texas at Austin (2011)

    2011

  78. [86]

    Weisman, C

    E. Weisman, C. K. Galla, C. Montoya, E. Alejandro, J. Lim, M. Beck, G. P. Winstone, A. Grinin, W. Eom, and A. A. Geraci, An apparatus for in-vacuum loading of nanoparticles into an optical trap, Review of Scientific Instruments 93, 115115 (2022)

    2022

  79. [87]

    Frimmer, K

    M. Frimmer, K. Luszcz, S. Ferreiro, V. Jain, E. Hebe- streit, and L. Novotny, Controlling the net charge on a nanoparticle optically levitated in vacuum, Phys. Rev. A 95, 061801 (2017)

    2017

  80. [88]

    Ricci, M

    F. Ricci, M. T. Cuairan, G. P. Conangla, A. W. Schell, and R. Quidant, Accurate Mass Measurement of a Lev- itated Nanomechanical Resonator for Precision Force- Sensing, Nano Lett. 19, 6711 (2019)

    2019

  81. [89]

    H. Kim, W. Lee, H.-g. Lee, H. Jo, Y. Song, and J. Ahn, In situ single-atom array synthesis using dynamic holo- graphic optical tweezers, Nat Commun 7, 13317 (2016)

    2016

  82. [90]

    Endres, H

    M. Endres, H. Bernien, A. Keesling, H. Levine, E. R. Anschuetz, A. Krajenbrink, C. Senko, V. Vuletic, M. Greiner, and M. D. Lukin, Atom-by-atom assembly of defect-free one-dimensional cold atom arrays, Science 354, 1024 (2016)

    2016

  83. [91]

    Barredo, S

    D. Barredo, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, V. Lienhard, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, An atom-by-atom assembler of defect-free arbitrary two-dimensional atomic arrays, Science 354, 1021 (2016)

    2016

  84. [92]

    Barredo, V

    D. Barredo, V. Lienhard, S. de L´ es´ eleuc, T. Lahaye, and A. Browaeys, Synthetic three-dimensional atomic struc- tures assembled atom by atom, Nature 561, 79 (2018)

    2018

  85. [93]

    H. W. Kuhn, The Hungarian method for the assign- ment problem, Naval Research Logistics Quarterly 2, 83 (1955)

    1955

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.