Quick Navigation
Topics
Quantum Algorithms
Constraining modified gravity with quantum optomechanics
arXiv
Authors: Sofia Qvarfort, Dennis Rätzel, Stephen Stopyra
Year
2021
Paper ID
62706
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
120
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We derive the best possible bounds that can be placed on Yukawa- and chameleon-like modifications to the Newtonian gravitational potential with a cavity optomechanical quantum sensor. By modelling the effects on an oscillating source-sphere on the optomechanical system from first-principles, we derive the fundamental sensitivity with which these modifications can be detected in the absence of environmental noise. In particular, we take into account the large size of the optomechanical probe compared with the range of the fifth forces that we wish to probe and quantify the resulting screening effect when both the source and probe are spherical. Our results show that optomechanical systems in high vacuum could, in principle, further constrain the parameters of chameleon-like modifications to Newtonian gravity.
Why This Paper Matters
- It adds a 2021 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We derive the best possible bounds that can be placed on Yukawa- and chameleon-like modifications to the Newtonian gravitational potential with a cavity optomechanical quantum...
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.