Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 67 references

Levitated Milligram-scale Ferromagnetic Magnetometer at Room Temperature

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Room-temperature levitated ferromagnet reaches 23 fT per root Hz.

desk verdict Solid room-temperature levitated ferromagnet magnetometer with credible 23 fT/√Hz sensitivity; the sub-femtotesla projection needs a closed dissipation budget. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08544 v1 pith:SK3MRYJC submitted 2026-08-09 quant-ph

Yuanji Sheng , Kenan Tian , Rui Li , Yiming Chen , Dingjiang Long , Siwen Chen , Peiran Yin This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 07.55.Ge
keywords ferromagneticmagnetometerdiamagneticlevitationlibrationalmodemagneticsensitivitymechanicaldissipationhysteresiseddy-currentsuppressionroom-temperaturesensing
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 reports a milligram-scale ferromagnet, a 1 mm by 1 mm by 8 mm NdFeB bar, levitated stably at room temperature by a lifting magnet and two bismuth plates, and used as a magnetometer. The central claim is a magnetic sensitivity of 23~$\mathrm{fT}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ near the 153~Hz librational resonance, a figure the authors state matches cryogenic Meissner-levitated ferromagnet systems. Careful geometry, bismuth's insulating oxide layer, ferrite shielding, and vibration isolation reduce mechanical dissipation and external noise, so the measurement is limited by vibration rather than thermal noise. The authors project a thermal-noise-limited sensitivity of 0.3~$\mathrm{fT}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ after further suppression of hysteresis loss and vibration.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the librational mode of a magnetically levitated hard ferromagnet, with resonant frequency $\omega_0 = \sqrt{M B V / I}$, where $M$ is magnetization, $B$ the field, $V$ volume, and $I$ moment of inertia. The measured angular noise $S_{\theta\theta}(\omega)$ is converted to magnetic-field noise through $S_{BB}(\omega) = S_{\theta\theta}(\omega) I^2 / (M^2 V^2 |\chi(\omega)|^2)$, using the mechanical response $\chi(\omega)$. The dissipation budget is carried by bismuth plates whose native oxide layer confines eddy currents, a ferrite shield that suppresses external eddy currents and fields, and a multi-channel loss analysis that identifies magnetic hysteresis in the ferromagnet as the remaining dominant damping.

What would settle it

Replace the NdFeB oscillator with a ferromagnet having a different imaginary permeability or different transverse dimensions while keeping magnetization fixed, and measure the low-pressure damping as a function of librational frequency; if $\gamma$ does not follow the predicted $\gamma_{\mathrm{fm,hyst}} \propto (a^2+b^2)\omega_0^3/M^2$, or if the unaccounted 0.36~mHz damping persists, the hysteresis-dominance and $Q\sim 10^7$ projection fail. A simpler check is to shift $\omega_0$ with a Helmholtz bias field and compare the measured damping ratio to the predicted scaling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the regime where a macroscopic ferromagnet's angular momentum is dominated by its mechanical moment of inertia rather than by electron spins, the levitated magnet does not precess but instead librates about the magnetic-field direction. The paper demonstrates this librational mode of a 60.4-mg NdFeB oscillator at $\omega_0/2\pi = 153.001$ Hz with quality factor $3.1\times 10^5$ at low pressure, and shows that the torque acting on the mode can be read out optically. From the measured angular-displacement power spectral density and the calibrated magnetic torque, the sensitivity is 23~$\mathrm{fT}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ at resonance. Cross-checks with an applied 360-Hz calibration field agree, confirming that the platform operates as a room-temperature magnetic-field sensor at the level of cryogenic Meissner-levitated ferromagnets.

Load-bearing premise

The weakest premise is that the low-pressure mechanical dissipation budget is complete: the quoted ferromagnet hysteresis loss of about 0.1 mHz plus shield hysteresis of about 0.03 mHz leaves roughly 0.36 mHz of the measured 0.49 mHz total unexplained, so the claim that hysteresis is dominant and suppressible to reach $Q\sim 10^7$ rests partly on an assumed imaginary permeability. The demonstrated 23~$\mathrm{fT}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ sensitivity does not depend on this assumption.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At 23~$\mathrm{fT}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ near 100~Hz, the sensor operates as a room-temperature magnetometer comparable to cryogenic levitated-ferromagnet devices.
  • The vibration-limited sensitivity means vibration isolation or feedback cooling of the low-frequency translational modes, not thermal noise, is the next bottleneck.
  • If hysteresis is reduced through material engineering and geometry, the projected $Q\sim 10^7$ gives a thermal-noise-limited sensitivity of 0.3~$\mathrm{fT}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$.
  • The platform is proposed for biomagnetic field detection and for searches for axions, dark photons, and exotic spin-dependent interactions.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test of the hysteresis-dominance claim would be to vary $\omega_0$ or the ferromagnet's transverse dimensions and check that the low-pressure damping scales as $\gamma_{\mathrm{fm,hyst}} \propto (a^2+b^2)\omega_0^3/M^2$, as the paper's own expression predicts.
  • The roughly 0.36~mHz of low-pressure damping beyond the quoted ferromagnet and shield hysteresis terms could be a separate mechanism; if it persists under material changes, the $Q\sim 10^7$ projection will not be reached by hysteresis reduction alone.
  • Because the same magnetic levitation geometry is cryogenically compatible, combining this room-temperature demonstration with existing millikelvin techniques offers a concrete path to test the sub-femtotesla projection before any new measurement principle is introduced.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a room-temperature, milligram-scale ferromagnetic magnetometer based on a diamagnetically levitated NdFeB bar librating at 153.001 Hz. The central experimental claim is a magnetic sensitivity of 23 fT/√Hz near resonance, supported by two independent calibrations: a linear optical-lever response and an off-resonance AC magnetic drive whose measured torque agrees with the predicted torque. The authors also present a dissipation budget for the low-pressure librational mode, identify magnetic hysteresis in the levitated ferromagnet as the dominant loss channel, and project that modest technical improvements could yield Q ~ 10^7 and a thermal-noise-limited sensitivity of 0.3 fT/√Hz. The demonstrated sensitivity is credible and competitive with cryogenic Meissner-levitated ferromagnet sensors; the forward-looking projection, however, rests on an incomplete and partly assumed dissipation budget.

Significance. If the demonstrated 23 fT/√Hz sensitivity holds, this is a meaningful advance: it brings room-temperature levitated ferromagnet magnetometry to the level of cryogenic Meissner-levitated systems, with open data and a dual calibration that makes the measured torque consistent between two independent methods. The paper also gives concrete design rules for suppressing eddy-current and hysteresis losses. The limitation is that the projected sensitivity of 0.3 fT/√Hz is not supported by the current dissipation accounting: the quoted loss channels sum to only ~0.14 mHz against a measured 0.49 mHz, and the dominant hysteresis term is computed from an assumed imaginary permeability rather than a measured material property. The central experimental result is therefore not in question, but the projection and the 'hysteresis-dominated' narrative require additional work.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III and Appendix C] The dissipation budget is incomplete. The low-pressure damping is measured as γ/2π = 0.49 mHz, while the quoted contributions are γ_fm_eddy/2π ≈ 0.01 mHz, γ_out_eddy/2π ≈ 3×10^-7 Hz, γ_Bi/2π ≈ 3×10^-10 Hz, γ_shield_hyst/2π ≈ 0.03 mHz, and γ_fm_hyst/2π ≈ 0.1 mHz. These sum to approximately 0.14 mHz, leaving roughly 0.35 mHz of the measured total unexplained. The statement that the hysteresis estimate 'matches the measured total mechanical dissipation' is therefore not justified, and the identification of hysteresis as the dominant dissipation channel is not supported by the present accounting. Because Eq. (4) uses the total γ to set the thermal-noise floor, the projection γ/2π ~ 10 μHz and the derived 0.3 fT/√Hz sensitivity depend directly on closing this gap. I ask the authors to either identify and quantify the missing pressure-independent loss channel with a measurement or explicitly present the projection as conditional on the closure of the budget.
  2. [Appendix C, Eq. (C4)] The central dissipation claim relies on an assumed material parameter. The term γ_fm_hyst/2π ≈ 0.1 mHz is computed using an imaginary permeability μ''/μ0 ~ 10^-3 that is not measured but chosen to produce agreement with the measured total. This is a free parameter in the model, not a measured input. Since the remaining ~0.35 mHz of damping is unaccounted, the numerical agreement between the hysteresis estimate and the measured total cannot be used as evidence for the model. I recommend an independent determination of μ'' on the same NdFeB material, or a measurement that distinguishes hysteresis from other intrinsic losses, such as a frequency or amplitude dependence of γ at fixed pressure.
  3. [Section IV.B and Fig. 3(c)] The calibration validation is convincing, but the quoted sensitivity is a resonance-peak value. The manuscript should state explicitly how the 23 fT/√Hz figure would compare to cryogenic Meissner-levitated systems at the same frequency and bandwidth, since off-resonance performance degrades substantially and the comparison to Ref. [30] depends on the measurement bandwidth and operating point. This does not affect the calibration consistency, but it bears on the strength of the 'matches state-of-the-art' claim.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III] The notation for γ appears reversed: the high-pressure FWHM is 4.40 mHz but is referred to as γ_low, while the low-pressure value 0.49 mHz is called γ_high. Please correct the labels or define them consistently with the pressure labels.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors, including 'the the x-axis', 'dominate dissipation', and 'accelarator'. A careful proofread is needed.
  3. [Appendix B, Eq. (B2)] The notation df/dy and df/dz in Eq. (B2) should be written as partial derivatives ∂f/∂y and ∂f/∂z for clarity.
  4. [Section V] The statement that 'it is the the large-amplitude translational modes perturbs the x-axis rotational modes' should be rephrased for grammatical correctness and to make the mechanism explicit.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The measured 23 fT/√Hz sensitivity is externally calibrated and not circular, but the claim that magnetic hysteresis is the dominant dissipation channel and the projected 0.3 fT/√Hz floor rest on an assumed µ''/µ0≈1e-3 whose resulting γ≈0.1 mHz is called 'agreement' with the measured damping.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section III (dissipation analysis) and Appendix C, Eq. (C4); projection repeated in Section V.]
    "Numerical calculations give γ_fm_hyst/2π∼0.1 mHz, matching the measured total mechanical dissipation γ/2π. ... Finite element simulations reveal that with an imaginary magnetic susceptibility (µ′′/µ0) of ∼10−3, magnetic hysteresis dissipation is γ_fm_hyst/2π∼0.1 mHz, exhibiting quantitative agreement with the low-pressure experimental measurements."

    In Eq. (C4), γ_fm_hyst is directly proportional to the assumed imaginary permeability µ′′. The paper does not report a measured or independently cited value of µ′′; it simply adopts ∼10−3 and then obtains γ_fm_hyst/2π∼0.1 mHz. Calling that result 'quantitative agreement' with the measured total is therefore an input–output identity: a different assumed µ′′ would automatically produce a different γ_hyst, so the 'agreement' cannot validate the model. Moreover, the quoted budget (≈0.01 mHz ferromagnet eddy + 0.03 mHz shield hysteresis + 0.1 mHz ferromagnet hysteresis + negligible Bi terms) sums to ≈0.14 mHz, not the measured 0.49 mHz, so the 'hysteresis is dominant' narrative and the 0.3 fT/√Hz projection are not independently supported.

full rationale

The headline sensitivity of 23 fT/√Hz is derived from the measured angular-displacement PSD and is cross-checked by two independent calibrations: the optical response coefficient k_y = 937±25 V/m and an applied off-resonance ac field giving B_cal = 0.29±0.02 nT. The theoretical RMS torque (1.9±0.1)×10−12 N·m agrees with the integrated spectral torque (2.0±0.1)×10−12 N·m, so the central magnetometric result is externally anchored and is not circular. The only circularity-adjacent step is the dissipation decomposition: the paper assumes µ''/µ0∼10−3, computes γ_fm_hyst≈0.1 mHz, and then presents the computed value as 'matching' or being in 'quantitative agreement' with the measured low-pressure damping. Since the output is determined one-to-one by the assumed input, the agreement is self-consistency rather than evidence. This assumed channel is then used to identify magnetic hysteresis as the dominant dissipation and to project Q∼10^7 and 0.3 fT/√Hz; that projection is therefore not yet supported, and the loss budget is also incomplete because the quoted terms do not sum to the measured 0.49 mHz. This is a partial, supporting-step circularity that does not corrupt the demonstrated 23 fT/√Hz result, hence a low-intermediate score rather than a high one.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central measurement is externally calibrated, so the ledger is small. The key unverified input is the imaginary permeability used to attribute damping to hysteresis, plus the assumed completeness of the loss budget. No new particles, fields, or conserved quantities are introduced; the Bi nanoparticle composite is an engineered material, not a new fundamental entity.

free parameters (2)
  • Imaginary permeability µ''/µ0 = ~1e-3
    Assumed in Appendix C to compute γ_fm_hyst/2π ≈ 0.1 mHz and match the measured total damping; no independent measurement or cited literature value is given.
  • Ferrite shield field enhancement α_shield = 1.3
    Simulation-derived correction factor used to convert the applied coil field into the calibration field B_cal = 0.29 ± 0.02 nT in Section IV.B; not fitted to the torque measurement, but a model input.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The ferromagnet behaves as a rigid macrospin with magnetic moment μ = MV, fully saturated, and librates about the local field direction.
    Used in Eqs. (1) to (4) and Section II.A to connect torque, resonance frequency, and magnetic field sensitivity.
  • standard math The fluctuation-dissipation theorem gives torque noise S_ττ^th = 4γ k_B T I with γ the measured mechanical damping.
    Invoked in Section II.A with Ref. [54] to derive the thermal-noise-limited sensitivity.
  • domain assumption The ferromagnet's internal permeability is approximately μ0 when saturated, so hysteresis loss is computed with H = B0/μ0.
    Appendix C uses this to derive γ_fm_hyst; it relies on full saturation of the NdFeB magnet.
  • domain assumption The Bi nanoparticle composite's insulating oxide layers suppress eddy currents to the level described by the sphere formula, with volume fraction η set to 1.
    Appendix B calculates γ_Bi_eddy/2π ≈ 3 × 10^-10 Hz; this assumes a conservative estimate but no direct measurement of inter-particle conductivity.
  • ad hoc to paper The unexplained fraction of the measured low-pressure damping, about 0.36 mHz, does not affect the thermal-noise floor or the projection to Q ~ 10^7.
    Section III reports γ_fm_hyst ≈ 0.1 mHz, shield ≈ 0.03 mHz, and eddy channels below 0.01 mHz, yet the total γ/2π is 0.49 mHz; the text asserts a match, which requires the remaining loss to be either absent or reducible in the same way.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Levitated Milligram-scale Ferromagnetic Magnetometer at Room Temperature." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SK3MRYJC

@misc{pith2026260808544,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Levitated Milligram-scale Ferromagnetic Magnetometer at Room Temperature},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SK3MRYJC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08544}
}
abstract

Levitated mechanical oscillators are emerging ultrasensitive sensors with tremendous potential in both applied and fundamental physics. Levitated ferromagnets, with internal spin noises rapidly averaged, promise ultrahigh magnetic sensitivity. Here, we demonstrate a milligram-scale diamagnetically levitated ferromagnet system operating at room temperature. Through optimized geometry and multi-channel dissipation control, we achieve a magnetic sensitivity of 23~fT$/\sqrt{\text{Hz}}$ at frequency of 100-Hz level. We anticipate that a ferromagnetic magnetometer with subfemtotesla sensitivity is within reach, after modest technical improvements. This platform establishes a high-performance magnetometer for biomagnetic field detection and beyond-standard-model force searches.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.08544 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (Color online) Schematic of the diamagnetically levitated ferromagnet system. (a) An elongated rectangular hard [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The frequency and mechanical dissipation of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Experiment Results. (a) The measured response [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

67 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [30]

    Ahrens, W

    F. Ahrens, W. Ji, D. Budker, C. Timberlake, H. Ulbricht, and A. Vinante, Levitated ferromagnetic magnetometer with energy resolution well belowℏ, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 110801 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [64]

    W. Ji, C. Xu, G. Qu, and D. Budker, Levitated sensor for magnetometry in ambient environment, arXiv:2504.21524

    arXiv

  3. [1]

    Glover and S

    P. Glover and S. P. Mansfield, Limits to magnetic reso- nance microscopy, Rep. Prog. Phys.65, 1489 (2002)

    work page 2002

  4. [2]

    Cheong, M

    S.-W. Cheong, M. Fiebig, W. Wu, L. Chapon, and V. Kiryukhin, Seeing is believing: visualization of antifer- romagnetic domains, npj Quantum Materials5, 3 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [3]

    Antypas, A

    D. Antypas, A. Banerjee, C. Bartram, M. Baryakhtar, J. Betz, J. J. Bollinger, C. Boutan, D. Bowring, D. Bud- ker, D. Carney,et al., New horizons: Scalar and vector ultralight dark matter, arXiv:2203.14915

    arXiv

  6. [4]

    L. Cong, W. Ji, P. Fadeev, F. Ficek, M. Jiang, V. V. Flambaum, H. Guan, D. F. J. Kimball, M. G. Kozlov, Y. V. Stadnik, and D. Budker, Spin-dependent exotic interactions, arXiv:2408.15691

    arXiv

  7. [5]

    Budker and M

    D. Budker and M. Romalis, Optical magnetometry, Nat. Phys.3, 227 (2007)

    2007

  8. [6]

    Schmelz, V

    M. Schmelz, V. Zakosarenko, A. Chwala, T. Schonau, R. Stolz, S. Anders, S. Linzen, and H.-G. Meyer, Thin- film-based ultralow noise squid magnetometer, IEEE Trans. Appl. Superconduct.26, 1 (2016)

    work page 2016

Show all 67 references
  1. [7]

    Z. Zhao, X. Ye, S. Xu, P. Yu, Z. Yang, X. Kong, Y. Wang, T. Xie, F. Shi, and J. Du, Sub-nanotesla sensitivity at the nanoscale with a single spin, Natl. Sci. Rev.10, nwad100 (2023)

    2023

  2. [8]

    D. F. Jackson Kimball, A. O. Sushkov, and D. Budker, Precessing ferromagnetic needle magnetometer, Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 190801 (2016)

    2016

  3. [9]

    Y. Band, Y. Avishai, and A. Shnirman, Dynamics of a magnetic needle magnetometer: Sensitivity to landau- lifshitz-gilbert damping, Phys. Rev. Lett.121, 160801 (2018)

    2018

  4. [10]

    X. Ni, Z. Zou, R. Lecamwasam, A. Vinante, D. Budker, P. K. Lam, T. Wang, and J. Gong, Microscopic theory of a precessing ferromagnet for ultrasensitive magnetom- etry, arXiv:2503.00728

  5. [11]

    Gonzalez-Ballestero, M

    C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, M. Aspelmeyer, L. Novotny, R. Quidant, and O. Romero-Isart, Levitodynamics: Lev- itation and control of microscopic objects in vacuum, Sci- ence374, 10.1126/science.abg3027 (2021)

    2021 doi

  6. [12]

    M. D. Simon, L. O. Heflinger, and A. K. Geim, Diamag- netically stabilized magnet levitation, Am. J. Phys.69, 702 (2001)

    2001

  7. [13]

    B. R. Slezak, C. W. Lewandowski, J.-F. Hsu, and B. D’Urso, Cooling the motion of a silica microsphere in a magneto-gravitational trap in ultra-high vacuum, New J. Phys.20, 063028 (2018)

    2018

  8. [14]

    Y. Leng, R. Li, X. Kong, H. Xie, D. Zheng, P. Yin, F. Xiong, T. Wu, C.-K. Duan, Y. Du, Z.-q. Yin, P. Huang, and J. Du, Mechanical dissipation below 1µHz with a cryogenic diamagnetic levitated micro-oscillator, Phys. Rev. Appl.15, 024061 (2021)

    2021

  9. [15]

    M. Fuwa, R. Sakagami, and T. Tamegai, Ferromagnetic levitation and harmonic trapping of a milligram-scale yttrium iron garnet sphere, Phys. Rev. A108, 063511 (2023)

    2023

  10. [16]

    S. Tian, K. Jadeja, D. Kim, A. Hodges, G. C. Her- mosa, C. Cusicanqui, R. Lecamwasam, J. E. Downes, and J. Twamley, Feedback cooling of an insulating high- q diamagnetically levitated plate, Appl. Phys. Lett.124, 124002 (2024)

    2024

  11. [17]

    Gieseler, L

    J. Gieseler, L. Novotny, and R. Quidant, Thermal non- linearities in a nanomechanical oscillator, Nat. Phys.9, 806 (2013)

    2013

  12. [18]

    J. Ahn, Z. Xu, J. Bang, P. Ju, X. Gao, and T. Li, Ul- trasensitive torque detection with an optically levitated nanorotor, Nat. Nanotechnol.15, 89 (2020)

    2020

  13. [19]

    Streltsov, J

    K. Streltsov, J. S. Pedernales, and M. B. Plenio, Ground- state cooling of levitated magnets in low-frequency traps, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 193602 (2021)

    2021

  14. [20]

    Aggarwal, G

    N. Aggarwal, G. P. Winstone, M. Teo, M. Baryakhtar, S. L. Larson, V. Kalogera, and A. A. Geraci, Searching for new physics with a levitated-sensor-based gravitational- wave detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 111101 (2022)

    2022

  15. [21]

    Millen, P

    J. Millen, P. Fonseca, T. Mavrogordatos, T. Monteiro, and P. Barker, Cavity cooling a single charged levitated nanosphere, Phys. Rev. Lett.114, 123602 (2015)

    2015

  16. [22]

    Pontin, N

    A. Pontin, N. P. Bullier, M. Toroˇ s, and P. F. Barker, Ultranarrow-linewidth levitated nano-oscillator for test- ing dissipative wave-function collapse, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023349 (2020)

    2020

  17. [23]

    Dania, D

    L. Dania, D. S. Bykov, F. Goschin, M. Teller, A. Kassid, and T. E. Northup, Ultrahigh quality factor of a levitated nanomechanical oscillator, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 133602 (2024)

    2024

  18. [24]

    B. Melo, M. T. Cuairan, G. F. M. Tomassi, N. Meyer, and R. Quidant, Vacuum levitation and motion control on chip, Nat. Nanotechnol.19, 1270 (2024)

    2024

  19. [25]

    Timberlake, G

    C. Timberlake, G. Gasbarri, A. Vinante, A. Setter, and H. Ulbricht, Acceleration sensing with magnetically lev- itated oscillators above a superconductor, Appl. Phys. Lett.115, 224101 (2019)

    2019

  20. [26]

    T. Wang, S. Lourette, S. R. O’Kelley, M. Kayci, Y. Band, D. F. J. Kimball, A. O. Sushkov, and D. Budker, Dynam- ics of a ferromagnetic particle levitated over a supercon- ductor, Phys. Rev. Appl.11, 044041 (2019)

    2019

  21. [27]

    Jiang, J

    X. Jiang, J. Rudge, and M. Hosseini, Superconducting levitation of a mg-scale cavity mirror, Appl. Phys. Lett. 116, 244103 (2020)

    2020

  22. [28]

    Hofer, R

    J. Hofer, R. Gross, G. Higgins, H. Huebl, O. F. Kieler, R. Kleiner, D. Koelle, P. Schmidt, J. A. Slater, M. Trupke, K. Uhl, T. Weimann, W. Wieczorek, and M. Aspelmeyer, High-qmagnetic levitation and control of superconducting microspheres at millikelvin tempera- tures, Phys. R...

    2023

  23. [29]

    T. M. Fuchs, D. G. Uitenbroek, J. Plugge, N. van Hal- teren, J.-P. van Soest, A. Vinante, H. Ulbricht, and T. H. Oosterkamp, Measuring gravity with milligram levitated masses, Sci. Adv.10, eadk2949 (2024)

    2024

  24. [31]

    Matsumoto, S

    N. Matsumoto, S. B. Cata˜ no-Lopez, M. Sugawara, S. Suzuki, N. Abe, K. Komori, Y. Michimura, Y. Aso, and K. Edamatsu, Demonstration of displacement sens- ing of a mg-scale pendulum for mm- and mg-scale gravity measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 071101 (2019)

    2019

  25. [32]

    Westphal, H

    T. Westphal, H. Hepach, J. Pfaff, and M. As- pelmeyer, Measurement of gravitational coupling be- tween millimetre-sized masses, Nature591, 225 (2021)

    2021

  26. [33]

    Monteiro, S

    F. Monteiro, S. Ghosh, A. G. Fine, and D. C. Moore, Op- tical levitation of 10-ng spheres with nano-gacceleration sensitivity, Phys. Rev. A96, 063841 (2017). 8

    2017

  27. [34]

    Xiong, P

    F. Xiong, P. Yin, T. Wu, H. Xie, R. Li, Y. Leng, Y. Li, C. Duan, X. Kong, P. Huang, and J. Du, Lens-free opti- cal detection of thermal motion of a submillimeter sphere diamagnetically levitated in high vacuum, Phys. Rev. Appl.16, L011003 (2021)

    2021

  28. [35]

    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

  29. [36]

    Gieseler, A

    J. Gieseler, A. Kabcenell, E. Rosenfeld, J. Schaefer, A. Safira, M. Schuetz, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, C. Rus- coni, O. Romero-Isart, and M. Lukin, Single-spin mag- netomechanics with levitated micromagnets, Phys. Rev. Lett.124, 163604 (2020)

    2020

  30. [37]

    Delord, P

    T. Delord, P. Huillery, L. Nicolas, and G. H´ etet, Spin- cooling of the motion of a trapped diamond, Nature580, 56 (2020)

    2020

  31. [38]

    P. Yin, R. Li, C. Yin, X. Xu, X. Bian, H. Xie, C.-K. Duan, P. Huang, J.-h. He, and J. Du, Experiments with levitated force sensor challenge theories of dark energy, Nat. Phys.18, 1181 (2022)

    2022

  32. [39]

    P. Yin, X. Xu, K. Tian, S. Lin, Y. Sheng, C. Yin, D. Long, C.-K. Duan, P. Huang, J.-h. He, and J. Du, Experimental constraints on the symmetron field with a magnetically levitated force sensor, Nat. Astron.9, 598 (2025)

    2025

  33. [40]

    K. Tian, Y. Sheng, R. Li, L. Wang, P. Yin, S. Lin, D. Long, C.-K. Duan, X. Kong, P. Huang, and J. Du, Constraints on velocity and spin dependent exotic in- teraction at the millimeter scale with a diamagnetic- levitated force sensor, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 111001 (2025)

    2025

  34. [41]

    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

  35. [42]

    D. C. Moore and A. A. Geraci, Searching for new physics using optically levitated sensors, Quantum Sci. Technol. 6, 014008 (2021)

    2021

  36. [43]

    Rossi, D

    M. Rossi, D. Mason, J. Chen, Y. Tsaturyan, and A. Schliesser, Measurement-based quantum control of mechanical motion, Nature563, 53 (2018)

    2018

  37. [44]

    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- ence367, 892 (2020)

    2020

  38. [45]

    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, Nature595, 373 (2021)

    2021

  39. [46]

    B. A. Stickler, K. Hornberger, and M. S. Kim, Quantum rotations of nanoparticles, Nat. Rev. Phys.3, 589 (2021)

    2021

  40. [47]

    C. C. Rusconi, M. Perdriat, G. H´ etet, O. Romero-Isart, and B. A. Stickler, Spin-controlled quantum interference of levitated nanorotors, Phys. Rev. Lett.129, 093605 (2022)

    2022

  41. [48]

    Huang, A

    G. Huang, A. Beccari, N. J. Engelsen, and T. J. Kippen- berg, Room-temperature quantum optomechanics using an ultralow noise cavity, Nature626, 512 (2024)

    2024

  42. [49]

    Y. Jin, K. Shen, P. Ju, X. Gao, C. Zu, A. J. Grine, and T. Li, Quantum control and berry phase of electron spins in rotating levitated diamonds in high vacuum, Nat. Commun.15, 5063 (2024)

    2024

  43. [50]

    Kaltenbaeket al., Research campaign: Macroscopic quantum resonators (maqro), Quantum Sci

    R. Kaltenbaeket al., Research campaign: Macroscopic quantum resonators (maqro), Quantum Sci. Technol.8, 014006 (2023)

    2023

  44. [51]

    S. Bose, I. Fuentes, A. A. Geraci, S. M. Khan, S. Qvar- fort, M. Rademacher, M. Rashid, M. Toroˇ s, H. Ulbricht, and C. C. Wanjura, Massive quantum systems as inter- faces of quantum mechanics and gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 97, 015003 (2025)

    2025

  45. [52]

    Vinante, C

    A. Vinante, C. Timberlake, D. Budker, D. F. J. Kimball, A. O. Sushkov, and H. Ulbricht, Surpassing the energy resolution limit with ferromagnetic torque sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 070801 (2021)

    2021

  46. [53]

    Y. Leng, Y. Chen, R. Li, L. Wang, H. Wang, L. Wang, H. Xie, C.-K. Duan, P. Huang, and J. Du, Measurement of the earth tides with a diamagnetic-levitated micro- oscillator at room temperature, Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 123601 (2024)

    2024

  47. [54]

    Kubo, The fluctuation-dissipation theorem, Rep

    R. Kubo, The fluctuation-dissipation theorem, Rep. Prog. Phys.29, 255 (1966)

    1966

  48. [55]

    See supplemental material at [url will be inserted by pub- lisher] for details of the data

  49. [56]

    P. Han, G. R. Skutt, J. Zhang, and F. C. Lee, Finite element method for ferrite core loss calculation, Proc. IEEE Appl. Power Electron. Conf. (APEC)1, 348 (1995)

    1995

  50. [57]

    Vinante, P

    A. Vinante, P. Falferi, G. Gasbarri, A. Setter, C. Tim- berlake, and H. Ulbricht, Ultralow mechanical damp- ing with meissner-levitated ferromagnetic microparticles, Phys. Rev. Appl.13, 064027 (2020)

    2020

  51. [58]

    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. D109, 055024 (2024)

    2024

  52. [59]

    Kalia, D

    S. Kalia, D. Budker, D. F. J. Kimball, W. Ji, Z. Liu, A. O. Sushkov, C. Timberlake, H. Ulbricht, A. Vinante, and T. Wang, Ultralight dark matter detection with levitated ferromagnets, Phys. Rev. D110, 115029 (2024)

    2024

  53. [60]

    H. Su, M. Jiang, Y. Wang, Y. Huang, X. Kang, W. Ji, X. Peng, and D. Budker, New constraints on axion- mediated spin interactions using magnetic amplification, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 191801 (2024)

    2024

  54. [61]

    Huang, H

    Y. Huang, H. Liang, M. Jiao, P. Yu, X. Ye, Y. Xie, Y.-F. Cai, C.-K. Duan, Y. Wang, X. Rong, and J. Du, New con- straints on exotic spin-spin-velocity-dependent interac- tions with solid-state quantum sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 180801 (2024)

    2024

  55. [62]

    Rusconi, V

    C. Rusconi, V. P¨ ochhacker, K. Kustura, J. Cirac, and O. Romero-Isart, Quantum spin stabilized magnetic lev- itation, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 167202 (2017)

    2017

  56. [63]

    Ahrens and A

    F. Ahrens and A. Vinante, Observation of gyro- scopic coupling in a non-spinning levitated ferromagnet, arXiv:2504.13744

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    Sheng, Data for: Levitated milligram-scale ferromag- netic magnetometer at room temperature, 10.5281/zen- odo.17975543 (2025)

    Y. Sheng, Data for: Levitated milligram-scale ferromag- netic magnetometer at room temperature, 10.5281/zen- odo.17975543 (2025)

    2025 doi

  58. [66]

    X. Chen, S. K. Ammu, K. Masania, P. G. Steeneken, and F. Alijani, Diamagnetic composites for high-q levitating resonators, Adv. Sci.9, 2203619 (2022)

    2022

  59. [67]

    H. Xie, Y. Li, R. Li, Y. Leng, Y. Chen, L. Wang, D. Long, X. Bian, C.-K. Duan, P. Yin, P. Huang, and J. Du, Suppressing mechanical dissipation of diamagnetically levitated oscillator via engineering conductive geometry, Phys. Rev. Res.5, 013030 (2023). 9

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.