- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

PRX Quantum

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Featured in Physics
  • Open Access

Realization of an All-Optical Effective Negative-Mass Oscillator for Coherent Quantum Noise Cancellation

Nived Johny1,2,*,†, Jonas Junker1,2,3,4,5,*, Bernd Schulte1,2, Dennis Wilken1,2, Klemens Hammerer6,7,8, and Michèle Heurs1,2

  • *These authors contributed equally.
  • †Contact author: nived.johny@aei.mpg.de
PDF

PRX Quantum 7, 020335 – Published 22 May, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/wdyd-bvkr

Abstract

We report the realization of an all-optical, tabletop effective negative-mass oscillator (ENMO) scheme capable of canceling quantum noise when cascaded with an optomechanical sensor susceptible to (quantum) radiation pressure noise. Our coherent quantum noise cancellation (CQNC) scheme offers a broadband cancellation capability with a tunable, wavelength-flexible, and compact system. This is achieved through the implementation of an optical equivalent of an optomechanical interaction, facilitated by a down-conversion and a beam-splitting process [Tsang and Caves, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 1 (2010)]. The intricate nature of the system and its multiple interacting components made characterizing the interdependent parameters with conventional methods ineffective, leading to the development of an in situ characterization scheme. The obtained parameters meet the targets for CQNC set in previous studies [Wimmer et al., Phys. Rev. A: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 89, 053836 (2014)]. With our current realization, we project a broadband quantum noise reduction of 3.6 dB, corresponding to a 77 % reduction in quantum back-action noise at the optimal frequency of maximum reduction, indicating the readiness of the ENMO for application. We discuss the prospects for new applications in quantum information and communication using the same platform.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Focus

Canceling Quantum Noise

Published 22 May, 2026

A new technique uses an ‘anti-noise’ signal to cancel out the unavoidable quantum noise associated with precision measurements like those needed for gravitational-wave detection.

See more in Physics

Popular Summary

In many ultrasensitive devices from those that listen for gravitational waves to tiny motion sensors the light itself can shake things up. This “quantum jitter” adds noise that obscures tiny signals, limiting measurement precision. Our work demonstrates a compact, tabletop gadget that can cancel that jitter, so that the sensor can hear the actual signal clearly without huge, expensive equipment.

We built a system that copies the way light normally pushes on a mechanical object, but by using only light beams. By linking two light modes inside tiny resonators with two simple processes, one that creates paired photons and another that mixes the beams, we made an “effective negative-mass” response. This response pushes back against the quantum jitter, canceling it out when placed behind a regular optomechanical sensor. We also created a way to tune and check all the settings while the device is running, something standard methods could not do. With our current setup, we expect to cut the unwanted noise by up to 77% over a broad frequency range.

Because the device works at a common laser wavelength and is small and adjustable, it can be added to many different quantum-limited sensors. Beyond just canceling noise, the same platform could serve as a building block for other quantum-information and -communication tasks, such as storing and releasing single photons on demand. Future work will focus on expanding the cancellation capabilities to a wider range of frequencies and exploring these applications.

Article Text

References (67)

  1. M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Cavity optomechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 1391 (2014).
  2. H. Ritsch, P. Domokos, F. Brennecke, and T. Esslinger, Cold atoms in cavity-generated dynamical optical potentials, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 553 (2013).
  3. 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, 378 (2021).
  4. F. Monteiro et al., Force and acceleration sensing with optically levitated nanogram masses at microkelvin temperatures, Phys. Rev. A 101, 053835 (2020).
  5. E. Capote et al., Advanced LIGO detector performance in the fourth observing run, Phys. Rev. D 111, 062002 (2025).
  6. D. Ganapathy et al., Broadband quantum enhancement of the LIGO detectors with frequency-dependent squeezing, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041021 (2023).
  7. The Virgo Collaboration et al., Quantum backaction on kg-scale mirrors: Observation of radiation pressure noise in the advanced Virgo detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 131101 (2020).
  8. A. G. Abac et al., Search for continuous gravitational waves from known pulsars in the first part of the fourth LIGO-Virgo-KAGRA observing run, Astrophys. J. 983, 99 (2025).
  9. Y. Chen, Macroscopic quantum mechanics: Theory and experimental concepts of optomechanics, J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 46, 104001 (2013).
  10. A. H. Safavi-Naeini et al., Observation of quantum motion of a nanomechanical resonator, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 033602 (2012).
  11. K. W. Murch, K. L. Moore, S. Gupta, and D. M. Stamper-Kurn, Observation of quantum-measurement backaction with an ultracold atomic gas, Nat. Phys. 4, 561 (2008).
  12. F. Yver-Leduc et al., Reaching the quantum noise limit in a high-sensitivity cold-atom inertial sensor, J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclassical Opt. 5, S136 (2003).
  13. V. B. Braginsky and I. I. Minakova, Influence of the small displacement measurements on the dynamical properties of mechanical oscillating systems, Moscow Univ. Phys. Bull. 1, 83 (1964).
  14. V. B. Braginskiy and A. B. Manukin, Ponderomotive effects of electromagnetic radiation, Sov. J. Exp. Theor. Phys. 25, 653 (1967).
  15. C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical radiation-pressure fluctuations in an interferometer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 45, 75 (1980).
  16. V. Braginsky, M. Gorodetsky, and F. Y. Khalili, Optical bars in gravitational wave antennas, Phys. Lett. A 232, 340 (1997).
  17. R. Schnabel, N. Mavalvala, D. E. McClelland, and P. K. Lam, Quantum metrology for gravitational wave astronomy, Nat. Commun. 1, 121 (2010).
  18. D. McClelland, N. Mavalvala, Y. Chen, and R. Schnabel, Advanced interferometry, quantum optics and optomechanics in gravitational wave detectors, Laser. Photon. Rev. 5, 677 (2011).
  19. S. L. Danilishin and F. Y. Khalili, Quantum measurement theory in gravitational-wave detectors, Living Rev. Relativ. 15, 5 (2012).
  20. S. Resch and U. R. Karpuzcu, Benchmarking quantum computers and the impact of quantum noise, ACM Comput. Surv. 54, 142 (2022).
  21. H. Barnum, M. A. Nielsen, and B. Schumacher, Information transmission through a noisy quantum channel, Phys. Rev. A 57, 4153 (1998).
  22. C. M. Caves, Quantum-mechanical noise in an interferometer, Phys. Rev. D 23, 1693 (1981).
  23. V. B. Braginsky, F. Y. Khalili, and K. S. Thorne, Quantum Measurement (Cambridge University, Cambridge, 1992).
  24. J. Abadie et al., A gravitational wave observatory operating beyond the quantum shot-noise limit, Nat. Phys. 7, 962 (2011).
  25. J. Lough et al., First demonstration of 6 dB quantum noise reduction in a kilometer scale gravitational wave observatory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 041102 (2021).
  26. J. Aasi et al., Enhanced sensitivity of the LIGO gravitational wave detector by using squeezed states of light, Nat. Photonics 7, 613 (2013).
  27. 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. D 65, 022002 (2001).
  28. N. S. Kampel et al., Improving broadband displacement detection with quantum correlations, Phys. Rev. X 7, 021008 (2017).
  29. J. Junker, D. Wilken, N. Johny, D. Steinmeyer, and M. Heurs, Frequency-dependent squeezing from a detuned squeezer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 129, 033602 (2022).
  30. L. McCuller et al., Frequency-dependent squeezing for advanced LIGO, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 171102 (2020).
  31. LIGO O4 Detector Collaboration et al., Broadband quantum enhancement of the LIGO detectors with frequency-dependent squeezing, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041021 (2023).
  32. Virgo Collaboration et al., Frequency-dependent squeezed vacuum source for the advanced Virgo gravitational-wave detector, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 041403 (2023).
  33. M. Tsang and C. M. Caves, Coherent quantum-noise cancellation for optomechanical sensors, Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 1 (2010).
  34. M. H. Wimmer, D. Steinmeyer, K. Hammerer, and M. Heurs, Coherent cancellation of backaction noise in optomechanical force measurements, Phys. Rev. A: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 89, 053836 (2014).
  35. J. Schweer, D. Steinmeyer, K. Hammerer, and M. Heurs, All-optical coherent quantum-noise cancellation in cascaded optomechanical systems, Phys. Rev. A 106, 033520 (2022).
  36. C. B. Møller et al., Quantum back-action-evading measurement of motion in a negative mass reference frame, Nature 547, 191 (2017).
  37. T. B. Brasil, V. Novikov, H. Kerdoncuff, M. Lassen, and E. S. Polzik, Two-colour high-purity Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen photonic state, Nat. Commun. 13, 4815 (2022).
  38. M. J. Woolley and A. A. Clerk, Two-mode back-action-Evading measurements in cavity optomechanics, Phys. Rev. A 87, 063846 (2013).
  39. T. Caniard, P. Verlot, T. Briant, P.-F. Cohadon, and A. Heidmann, Observation of back-action noise cancellation in interferometric and weak force measurements, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 110801 (2007).
  40. L. Mercier De Lépinay, C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi, M. J. Woolley, and M. A. Sillanpää, Quantum mechanics–free subsystem with mechanical oscillators, Science 372, 625 (2021).
  41. J. B. Hertzberg et al., Back-action-evading measurements of nanomechanical motion, Nat. Phys. 6, 213 (2010).
  42. C. F. Ockeloen-Korppi et al., Quantum backaction evading measurement of collective mechanical modes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 140401 (2016).
  43. K. Hammerer, A. S. Sørensen, and E. S. Polzik, Quantum interface between light and atomic ensembles, Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1041 (2010).
  44. A. A. Clerk, F. Marquardt, and K. Jacobs, Back-action evasion and squeezing of a mechanical resonator using a cavity detector, New J. Phys. 10, 095010 (2008).
  45. C. Gräf, A. Thüring, H. Vahlbruch, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, Length sensing and control of a Michelson interferometer with power recycling and twin signal recycling cavities, Opt. Express 21, 5287 (2013).
  46. D. Steinmeyer, Subsystems for all-optical coherent quantum-noise cancellation, Ph.D. thesis, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover, 2019.
  47. J. Yoshikawa et al., in Advances in Photonics of Quantum Computing, Memory, and Communication X (SPIE OPTO, San Francisco, California, United States, 2017), Vol. 10118, p. 1011804.
  48. J. Yoshikawa, K. Makino, S. Kurata, P. van Loock, and A. Furusawa, Creation, storage, and on-demand release of optical quantum states with a negative Wigner function, Phys. Rev. X 3, 041028 (2014).
  49. T. Corbitt et al., Squeezed-state source using radiation-pressure-Induced rigidity, Phys. Rev. A 73, 023801 (2006).
  50. S. L. Danilishin, F. Y. Khalili, and H. Miao, Advanced quantum techniques for future gravitational-wave detectors, Living Rev. Relativ. 22, 2 (2019).
  51. Bernd Wolfgang Schulte, Characterisation and integration of an optomechanical system for an all-optical CQNC experiment, Ph.D. thesis, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz Universität Hannover, 2023.
  52. J. Junker, D. Wilken, D. Steinmeyer, and M. Heurs, Reconstructing Gaussian bipartite states with a single polarization-sensitive homodyne detector, Opt. Express 30, 33860 (2022).
  53. J. Junker et al., Squeezing at the normal-mode splitting frequency of a nonlinear coupled cavity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 134, 243603 (2025).
  54. Laseroptik Catalog, 2025, https://www.laseroptik.com/data/files/.
  55. C. Burri, Zur theorie und praxis der drehkompensatoren nach berek und ehringhaus, Zeitsch. Angew. Math. Phys. 4, 418 (1953).
  56. 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, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 110801 (2016).
  57. A. I. Lvovsky, B. C. Sanders, and W. Tittel, Optical quantum memory, Nat. Photonics 3, 706 (2009).
  58. K. Makino et al., Synchronization of optical photons for quantum information processing, Sci. Adv. 2, e1501772 (2016).
  59. T. B. Pittman, B. C. Jacobs, and J. D. Franson, Single photons on pseudodemand from stored parametric down-conversion, Phys. Rev. A: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 66, 7 (2002).
  60. T. Tanabe, M. Notomi, H. Taniyama, and E. Kuramochi, Dynamic release of trapped light from an ultrahigh-Q nanocavity via adiabatic frequency tuning, Phys. Rev. Lett. 102, 043907 (2009).
  61. Y. Lei et al., Quantum optical memory for entanglement distribution, Optica 10, 1511 (2023).
  62. A. Wallucks, I. Marinković, B. Hensen, R. Stockill, and S. Gröblacher, A quantum memory at telecom wavelengths, Nat. Phys. 16, 772 (2020).
  63. M. B. Kristensen, N. Kralj, E. C. Langman, and A. Schliesser, Long-lived and efficient optomechanical memory for light, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132, 100802 (2024).
  64. Y.-W. Cho et al., Highly efficient optical quantum memory with long coherence time in cold atoms, Optica 3, 100 (2016).
  65. T. Tanabe, M. Notomi, E. Kuramochi, A. Shinya, and H. Taniyama, Trapping and delaying photons for one nanosecond in an ultrasmall high-Q photonic-crystal nanocavity, Nat. Photonics 1, 49 (2007).
  66. N. Johny et al., Measurement data and fitting code for “Realization of an all-optical effective negative-mass oscillator for coherent quantum noise cancellation” (2026), https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.19235919
  67. E. D. Black, An introduction to Pound–Drever–Hall laser frequency stabilization, Am. J. Phys. 69, 79 (2001).

Outline

Information

PRX Quantum 7, 020335– Published 22 May, 2026
  • Received 4 November 2025
  • Accepted 23 March 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Open access publication funded by Max Planck Society.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation