Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Coherent Feedback Cooling of A Nanomechanical Membrane With Atomic Spins
Coherent Feedback Cooling of A Nanomechanical Membrane With Atomic Spins
Coherent feedback stabilises a system towards a target state without the need of a measurement,
thus avoiding the quantum backaction inherent to measurements. Here, we employ optical coherent
feedback to remotely cool a nanomechanical membrane using atomic spins as a controller. Direct
manipulation of the atoms allows us to tune from strong-coupling to an overdamped regime. Making
use of the full coherent control offered by our system, we perform spin-membrane state swaps
combined with stroboscopic spin pumping to cool the membrane in a room-temperature environment
to T = 216 mK (n̄m = 2.3 × 103 phonons) in 200 µs. We furthermore observe and study the effects of
delayed feedback on the cooling performance. Starting from a cryogenically pre-cooled membrane,
arXiv:2111.09802v1 [quant-ph] 18 Nov 2021
this method would enable cooling of the mechanical oscillator close to its quantum mechanical
ground state and the preparation of nonclassical states.
(a) (b)
γs /(2g) 101 γs /(2g)
0.3 0.3
105
1.0 0.4
S̄Xm Xm (1/Hz)
11.0 0.7
35.7 100 1.0
hb†m bm i
no spin 1.4
11.0
104 35.7
10−1
200 400 600 1950 1952 1955 1958 1960 1962 1965
time (µs) frequency (kHz)
FIG. 2. (a): Time traces of the membrane occupation number after turning on the coupling to the atoms. The different traces
show measurements with different spin damping rates γs . The dashed lines correspond to the simulation described in the text
based on Eqs. (1) and (2). The dotted line shows the membrane dynamics without atoms but with the coupling beam turned
on. (b): Power spectral density of the membrane displacement. The dashed lines show a global fit to the data with the initial
phonon occupation hb†i bi i(t = 0), Ωm , τ , g, and the detector shot noise level as global fit parameters and Ωs and γs as individual
fit parameters. All other parameters were taken from independent calibrations. In (a) and (b), solid lines correspond to the
mean and shaded areas to the standard deviation of 355 measurements.
membrane. The oscillations dephase after approximately the membrane much faster than in the continuous cool-
1 ms and a steady state with a membrane occupation of ing case discussed above. In Fig. 3 we show a compari-
n̄m,ss ≈ 2.3 × 103 phonons is reached, corresponding to a son between stroboscopic and continuous cooling, where
temperature decrease by two orders of magnitude com- time traces for (a) the membrane occupation number
pared to the initial state. In this process the membrane and (b) the spin occupation number are shown. In
is predominantly cooled via its coupling to the cold and the stroboscopic sequence we perform a coherent π-pulse
damped spin, reaching a temperature one order of mag- (Tpulse = 100 µs, γs = 0.6g) to swap membrane and spin
nitude lower than in the presence of the optomechanical states. Afterwards, we apply an optical pumping pulse of
cooling beams alone. duration Tpump = 10 µs which increases the spin damp-
We now study the effect of increasing the spin damp- ing rate to γs ≈ 60g and depletes the spin occupation
ing rate γs on the coupled dynamics. To increase γs on a timescale much shorter than the state swap (gray
we apply a σ− -polarized pump laser along the polariza- pulses in Fig. 3(b)). During the pumping pulse the cou-
tion axis of the spin (calibration in Appendix A 2). As pling is kept on. Since the spin is reinitialised close to
can be seen in Fig. 2(a), increasing γs first enhances the the ground state, the next coherent state swap does not
membrane cooling, until the overdamped regime γs 2g transfer thermal energy back to the membrane but only
is reached where the membrane couples incoherently to cools it further. It takes two to three such iterations
a quasi-continuum of cold spin fluctuations. The mem- of a coherent π-pulse followed by a spin pumping pulse
brane decay is then governed by Fermi’s golden rule, with to reach the steady state (see Fig. 3). Using this sim-
the occupation number decreasing at the sympathetic ple sequence, we can reach the membrane steady state
cooling rate γsym ≈ 4g 2 /γs , i.e. the cooling becomes less temperature of 216 mK (n̄m,ss = 2.3 × 103 phonons) in
effective as γs is increased further. In this weak-coupling around 200 µs, approximately a factor of two faster than
regime, the modes decouple and the membrane spectrum for continuous cooling. This exemplarily shows the ad-
shows a single Lorentzian peak, broadened by the inter- vantage of a coherent feedback controller, which enables
action with the spin, see Fig. 2(b). faster cooling than if the membrane is coupled with a
similar rate to an incoherent, overdamped system.
(a) (a)
Continuous Cooling
105 Stroboscopic Cooling 104
hb†m bm iss
hb†m bm i
104
hb†m bm iss
106 Large γs
Data
103
104
102
100 200 300 400 500 600 −7.5 −5.0 −2.5 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5
time (µs) δ/(2π) (kHz)
FIG. 3. (a) Membrane and (b) spin occupation numbers for FIG. 4. Steady state occupation of the membrane as a func-
continuous cooling at γs = 2g and stroboscopic cooling at tion of (a) spin damping rate γs (at resonance, δ = 0) and
γs = 0.6g. The gray shaded areas indicate the spin pump- (b) spin-membrane detuning δ = Ωs − Ωm at γs = 0.6g. The
ing pulses (where γs ≈ 60g). Solid lines and shaded areas solid (dashed) blue line shows the result of the simulation
correspond to the mean and standard deviation of 70 mea- with (without) delay. In (a), the red dashed-dotted line in-
surements and dashed lines correspond to a simulation. dicates the steady-state number given by the rate in Eq. (3)
with τ = 15 ns. The red shaded area shows the region for
which the dynamics is found to be unstable using the Routh-
system [8], Hurwitz criterion. For this measurement, n̄m,bath ≈ 4.0 × 104
phonons and γm = 2π×94 Hz (independently calibrated with-
out atoms). The data points with error bars correspond to the
Ẍm + γm Ẋm + Ω2m Xm = −2gΩm Xs (t − τ ) + Fm , (1)
mean and the standard deviation of steady state occupations
Ẍs + γs Ẋs + Ω2s Xs = −2gΩs Xm (t − τ ) + Fs , (2) of 20 (3) experimental realisations in (a) ((b)).
4g 2
γsym ≈ [γs cos(2Ωm τ ) + 2δ sin(2Ωm τ )] (3)
4δ 2+ γs2
fit
2. Calibration of the spin damping rate
6 data
One of the main parameters in the experiments is the
θF (mrad)
where Xs (t) and Ps (t) are the fast rotating quadratures where we have introduced the zero-point fluctuation am-
of the spin oscillator. In the looped experiment, only a plitude of the membrane xZPF = (~/2meff Ωm )1/2 , with
small fraction of the light was measured in between the meff the effective mass of the vibration mode. These
first interaction of the spin and the interaction of the light phase variations δφc can now be read interferometrically
with the membrane. This in-loop measurement was cal- by means of balanced homodyne detection. For this, the
ibrated using a coherent spin excitation and comparing beam reflected from the cavity is combined with a strong
it to the polarization homodyne measurement presented local oscillator in a 50:50 beam splitter. The output
in this section. beams are subsequently photodetected and the output
8
Ωs /(2π) (kHz)
γs /(2π) (kHz)
data
hb†s bs i
103 1958
101
102
1956
100
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 10−2 10−1 100 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
time (ms) Ppump (µW) Ppump (µW)
FIG. 7. Measurement of the spin in the absence of coupling to the membrane after it is excited by a weak RF-pulse: (a) Time
trace of double pass measurement of the spin with different pumping powers (range from 0 to 10 µW). The dashed lines show
fits with an exponential decay. The spin linewidth (b) and spin frequency (c) are plotted as a function of the pump power.
The dashed lines in (b) and (c) show a linear fit to the spin linewidth and resonance frequency. The crosses show the fit
parameters extracted from Fig. 2(a) which were used as input for the simulations. The data shown in (a) is an average over
seven experimental realisations and was used to fit the exponential decay [for (b)] and the Lorentzian peak [for (c)]. The error
bars in (b) and (c) show the fit-error of the corresponding quantity.
signals subtracted. The recorded balanced voltage can its rms value δV (t)50 Ω
rms , which we further need to multiply
be written as by a factor of 2 due to impedance mismatch of our mea-
suring instrument. To convert the measured rms √ value to
V = V0 cos(∆φ), (A7) amplitude variations, we thus need an overall 2 2 factor.
with V0 the modulation amplitude, proportional to the This finally yields
square-root of the power of the beam reflected from the 1
cavity and of the local oscillator beam and with ∆φ = n̄m (t) + = hXm (t)2 it
2
φc − φLO where φLO is the phase of the local oscillator. Ω 2
2
ηc δV (t)50
The modulation amplitude V0 is inferred by modulat- rms κ
= . (A10)
ing φLO , thanks to a movable mirror in the local oscillator V0 2g0
path which allows to generate path differences of a few The values of κ = 2π × 77 MHz and g0 = 2π × 224 Hz,
wavelengths. V0 can be extracted from the contrast of have been independently calibrated from the width of
the observed interference fringes. In order to detect the the Pound-Drever-Hall signal and by measuring the op-
phase fluctuations δφc of φc induced by the membrane tomechanical response to an optical amplitude modula-
motion, we lock the relative phase ∆φ to π/2, i.e., the tion tone, respectively.
point where the slope of the fringes is maximal. For small
shifts δφc π/2, the recorded voltage variation δV (t) is
directly proportional to δφc (t), and thus to xm (t). In Appendix B: Theoretical model for the
practice, δV (t) is effectively reduced by a factor ηc due membrane-spin coupling
to imperfect cavity coupling, such that
ηc δV (t) xZPF κ We modelled our membrane-spin coupling by two cou-
xm (t) = . (A8) pled harmonic oscillators as shown in Eqs. (1) and (2). In
V0 4g0
the following we show how we characterised, simulated,
In order to determine membrane phonon occupation and approximated the system starting from these equa-
n̄m (t) we first define the dimensionless
√ membrane tions. In section B 1 the stochasic simulation of the sys-
quadrature
√ operators X m = x m /( 2x ZPF ) and Pm = tem is presented. In section B 2 we show the derivation
2xZPF pm /~, defined so that [Xm , Pm ] = i. We can now of the fit function for the spectra. From the spectrum, we
write calculate the sympathetic cooling rate and the resonance
hXm (t)2 + Pm (t)2 i frequency shift in the weak coupling limit in section B 3.
hH(t)i= ~Ωm Finally, we show the Routh-Hurwitz stability analysis of
2
the coupled dynamics with delay in section B 4.
1
= ~Ωm n̄m (t) + . (A9)
2
By means of the equipartition theorem, we can write 1. Simulation of the spin-membrane dynamics
hXm (t)2 it = hPm (t)2 it and thus relate the measured volt-
age variations to the membrane phonon occupation num- In this section, we provide some details on the simula-
ber. In practice, we do not measure the voltage δV (t) but tion method we used to solve the stochastic equations of
9
motion Eqs. (1) and (2) for the spin-membrane system. be neglected in the rotating frame i.e. X̃j (t) ≈ X̃j (t − τ )
This simulation follows closely the algorithm presented and P̃j (t) ≈ P̃j (t − τ ). The equations of motion then
in [37]. For the simulation, we rewrite the equations of read
motion as four coupled first-order differential equations
for X̃j and P̃j , with j ∈ (m, s) in a frame rotating at the
membrane frequency Ωm (operators in the rotating frame X̃m (t) X̃m (t) − sin (Ωm t)Fm (t)
are denoted with a tilde) and apply the rotating wave d P̃m (t) = −M P̃m (t) +
cos (Ωm t)Fm (t)
approximation (RWA). In the limit where the propaga- dt X̃s (t) X̃s (t) − sin (Ωm t)Fs (t) ,
tion delay is small compared to other timescales involved P̃s (t) P̃s (t) cos (Ωm t)Fs (t)
in the coupled dynamics (i.e. τ γj−1 , g −1 , δ −1 ), the (B1)
change of the oscillator quadratures during the time τ can where we have split the dynamics into the 4×4 dynamical
matrix
and a stochastic part, given by the generalized noise and the calculated room temperature occupation of the
p (tot) membrane. We assumed the spin pumping to be perfect
forces Fj (t) = 2γj Fj (t). The total force noise
(tot) (th) such that the spin oscillator environment is in its quan-
Fj (t) includes the thermal noise Fj (t) and the back-
(ba)
tum mechanical ground state (i.e. n̄s,bath = 0).
action noise Fj (t) which itself depends on the optical
(in) The approach given in [37] allows for an exact simu-
vacuum noise Fj (t). Thus, it is given by
lation of the stochastic dynamics for a single oscillator
(tot) (th) (ba) for arbitrary time steps, which we extend to the case of
Fj (t)= Fj (t) + Fj (t)
s two coupled oscillators with delay. This is done by calcu-
(th) 2Γj (in) lating for each time step the coherent evolution and the
= Fj (t) + F (t), (B3)
γj j noise separately:
2. Fit function for the power spectral density of Here, we have defined an effective frequency shift δΩshift
mechanical displacement and the sympathetic cooling rate γsym , which for ω = Ωm
read
In this section, we provide some details on the coupled-
mode model used for fitting the power spectral density 4g 2 Ωm Ωs
δΩ2shift = 2 2
of the mechanical displacement shown in Fig. 2(b). For (Ω2s − Ω2m ) + (Ωm γs )
this, we first Fourier transform the equations of motion × Ω2s − Ω2m cos (2Ωm τ ) − Ωm γs sin (2Ωm τ ) ,
Eqs. (1) and (2), which allows us to derive the following (B16)
effective susceptibilities
1.25 τ = 80 ns
In order to apply the Routh-Hurwitz criterion, the so-
γs /(2g)
[1] Philipp Treutlein, C Genes, Klemens Hammerer, and Schmiedmayer, “Quantum technologies with hybrid sys-
M Poggio, Hybrid mechanical systems, edited by Markus tems,” PNAS 112, 3866–3873 (2015).
Aspelmeyer, Tobias J. Kippenberg, and Florian Mar- [3] Yiwen Chu and Simon Gröblacher, “A perspective on
quardt (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, hybrid quantum opto- and electromechanical systems,”
2014) pp. 327–351. Appl. Phys. Lett. 117, 150503 (2020).
[2] Gershon Kurizki, Patrice Bertet, Yuimaru Kubo, Klaus [4] Stephan Camerer, Maria Korppi, Andreas Jöckel, David
Mølmer, David Petrosyan, Peter Rabl, and Jörg Hunger, Theodor W. Hänsch, and Philipp Treutlein,
12
“Realization of an optomechanical interface between ul- [17] A. Barfuss, J. Teissier, E. Neu, A. Nunnenkamp, and
tracold atoms and a membrane,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, P. Maletinsky, “Strong mechanical driving of a single
223001 (2011). electron spin,” Nat. Phys. 11, 820–824 (2015).
[5] Andreas Jöckel, Aline Faber, Tobias Kampschulte, Maria [18] Donghun Lee, Kenneth W Lee, Jeffrey V Cady, Preeti
Korppi, Matthew T. Rakher, and Philipp Treutlein, Ovartchaiyapong, and Ania C Bleszynski Jayich, “Top-
“Sympathetic cooling of a membrane oscillator in a hy- ical review: spins and mechanics in diamond,” J. Opt.
brid mechanical–atomic system,” Nat. Nanotechnol. 10, 19, 033001 (2017).
55–59 (2015). [19] Seth Lloyd, “Coherent quantum feedback,” Phys. Rev. A
[6] Philipp Christoph, Tobias Wagner, Hai Zhong, Roland 62, 022108 (2000).
Wiesendanger, Klaus Sengstock, Alexander Schwarz, [20] Jing Zhang, Yu xi Liu, Re-Bing Wu, Kurt Jacobs, and
and Christoph Becker, “Combined feedback and sympa- Franco Nori, “Quantum feedback: Theory, experiments,
thetic cooling of a mechanical oscillator coupled to ultra- and applications,” Phys. Rep. 679, 1–60 (2017).
cold atoms,” New J. Phys. 20, 093020 (2018). [21] Howard M. Wiseman and Gerard J. Milburn,
[7] Christoffer B. Møller, Rodrigo A. Thomas, Georgios Vasi- Quantum Measurement and Control (Cambridge Uni-
lakis, Emil Zeuthen, Yeghishe Tsaturyan, Mikhail Bal- versity Press, 2009).
abas, Kasper Jensen, Albert Schliesser, Klemens Ham- [22] Ryan Hamerly and Hideo Mabuchi, “Advantages of co-
merer, and Eugene S. Polzik, “Quantum back-action- herent feedback for cooling quantum oscillators,” Phys.
evading measurement of motion in a negative mass ref- Rev. Lett. 109, 173602 (2012).
erence frame,” Nature 547, 191–195 (2017). [23] James S Bennett, Lars S Madsen, Mark Baker, Halina
[8] Thomas M. Karg, Baptiste Gouraud, Chun Tat Ngai, Rubinsztein-Dunlop, and Warwick P Bowen, “Coherent
Gian-Luca Schmid, Klemens Hammerer, and Philipp control and feedback cooling in a remotely coupled hybrid
Treutlein, “Light-mediated strong coupling between a atom–optomechanical system,” New J. Phys. 16, 083036
mechanical oscillator and atomic spins 1 meter apart,” (2014).
Science 369, 174–179 (2020). [24] Masashi Hirose and Paola Cappellaro, “Coherent feed-
[9] Rodrigo A. Thomas, Michal Parniak, Christoffer back control of a single qubit in diamond,” Nature 532,
Østfeldt, Christoffer B. Møller, Christian Bærentsen, 77–80 (2016).
Yeghishe Tsaturyan, Albert Schliesser, Jürgen Appel, [25] J. Zhang, R. Wu, Y. Liu, C. Li, and T. Tarn, “Quantum
Emil Zeuthen, and Eugene S. Polzik, “Entanglement be- coherent nonlinear feedback with applications to quan-
tween distant macroscopic mechanical and spin systems,” tum optics on chip,” IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 57,
Nat. Phys. 17, 228–233 (2021). 1997–2008 (2012).
[10] I. Yeo, P.-L. de Assis, A. Gloppe, E. Dupont-Ferrier, [26] Zhaoyou Wang and Amir H. Safavi-Naeini, “Enhancing a
P. Verlot, N. S. Malik, E. Dupuy, J. Claudon, J.-M. slow and weak optomechanical nonlinearity with delayed
Gérard, A. Auffèves, G. Nogues, S. Seidelin, J.-Ph Poizat, quantum feedback,” Nature Communications 8, 15886
O. Arcizet, and M. Richard, “Strain-mediated coupling (2017).
in a quantum dot–mechanical oscillator hybrid system,” [27] Alfred Harwood, Matteo Brunelli, and Alessio Serafini,
Nat. Nanotechnol. 9, 106–110 (2014). “Cavity optomechanics assisted by optical coherent feed-
[11] Michele Montinaro, Gunter Wüst, Mathieu Munsch, back,” Phys. Rev. A 103, 023509 (2021).
Yannik Fontana, Eleonora Russo-Averchi, Martin Heiss, [28] M. J. Woolley and A. A. Clerk, “Two-mode squeezed
Anna Fontcuberta i Morral, Richard J. Warburton, and states in cavity optomechanics via engineering of a single
Martino Poggio, “Quantum Dot Opto-Mechanics in a reservoir,” Phys. Rev. A 89, 063805 (2014).
Fully Self-Assembled Nanowire,” Nano Lett. 14, 4454– [29] Jie Li, Gang Li, Stefano Zippilli, David Vitali, and Tian-
4460 (2014). cai Zhang, “Enhanced entanglement of two different me-
[12] A. D. O’Connell, M. Hofheinz, M. Ansmann, Ra- chanical resonators via coherent feedback,” Phys. Rev. A
doslaw C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, Erik Lucero, M. Nee- 95, 043819 (2017).
ley, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, John M. [30] Klemens Hammerer, Anders S. Sørensen, and Eugene S.
Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, “Quantum ground state Polzik, “Quantum interface between light and atomic en-
and single-phonon control of a mechanical resonator,” sembles,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 1041–1093 (2010).
Nature 464, 697–703 (2010). [31] Luca Pezzè, Augusto Smerzi, Markus K. Oberthaler, Ro-
[13] Patricio Arrangoiz-Arriola, E. Alex Wollack, Zhaoyou man Schmied, and Philipp Treutlein, “Quantum metrol-
Wang, Marek Pechal, Wentao Jiang, Timothy P. ogy with nonclassical states of atomic ensembles,” Rev.
McKenna, Jeremy D. Witmer, Raphaël Van Laer, and Mod. Phys. 90, 035005 (2018).
Amir H. Safavi-Naeini, “Resolving the energy levels of a [32] B. Vogell, T. Kampschulte, M. T. Rakher, A. Faber,
nanomechanical oscillator,” Nature 571, 537–540 (2019). P. Treutlein, K. Hammerer, and P. Zoller, “Long dis-
[14] A. A. Clerk, K. W. Lehnert, P. Bertet, J. R. Petta, tance coupling of a quantum mechanical oscillator to the
and Y. Nakamura, “Hybrid quantum systems with cir- internal states of an atomic ensemble,” New J. Phys. 17,
cuit quantum electrodynamics,” Nat. Phys. 16, 257–267 043044 (2015).
(2020). [33] M. Wallquist, K. Hammerer, P. Zoller, C. Genes, M. Lud-
[15] D. Rugar, R. Budakian, H. J. Mamin, and B. W. Chui, wig, F. Marquardt, P. Treutlein, J. Ye, and H. J. Kim-
“Single spin detection by magnetic resonance force mi- ble, “Single-atom cavity QED and optomicromechanics,”
croscopy,” Nature 430, 329–332 (2004). Phys. Rev. A 81, 023816 (2010).
[16] O. Arcizet, V. Jacques, A. Siria, P. Poncharal, P. Vin- [34] J. D. Thompson, B. M. Zwickl, A. M. Jayich, Florian
cent, and S. Seidelin, “A single nitrogen-vacancy defect Marquardt, S. M. Girvin, and J. G. E. Harris, “Strong
coupled to a nanomechanical oscillator,” Nat. Phys. 7, dispersive coupling of a high-finesse cavity to a microme-
879–883 (2011). chanical membrane,” Nature 452, 72–75 (2008).
13
[35] Markus Aspelmeyer, Tobias J. Kippenberg, and Florian atomic motion in an optical lattice coupled to a mem-
Marquardt, “Cavity optomechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys. brane,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 073602 (2018).
86, 1391–1452 (2014). [41] Eberhard P. Hofer, Grundlagen der Regelungstechnik
[36] Thomas M. Karg, Baptiste Gouraud, Philipp Treutlein, (Open Access Repositorium der Universität Ulm, 2008)
and Klemens Hammerer, “Remote Hamiltonian interac- pp. 40–51.
tions mediated by light,” Phys. Rev. A 99, 063829 (2019). [42] Y. Tsaturyan, A. Barg, E. S. Polzik, and A. Schliesser,
[37] Simon F. Nørrelykke and Henrik Flyvbjerg, “Harmonic “Ultracoherent nanomechanical resonators via soft
oscillator in heat bath: Exact simulation of time-lapse- clamping and dissipation dilution,” Nat. Nanotechnol.
recorded data and exact analytical benchmark statis- 12, 776–783 (2017).
tics,” Phys. Rev. E 83, 041103 (2011). [43] C. Reetz, R. Fischer, G. G. T. Assumpção, D. P. McNally,
[38] D. V. Ramana Reddy, A. Sen, and G. L. Johnston, P. S. Burns, J. C. Sankey, and C. A. Regal, “Analysis of
“Time delay induced death in coupled limit cycle oscil- Membrane Phononic Crystals with Wide Band Gaps and
lators,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5109–5112 (1998). Low-Mass Defects,” Phys. Rev. Appl. 12, 044027 (2019).
[39] D. V. Ramana Reddy, A. Sen, and G. L. Johnston, “Ex- [44] J. M. Geremia, John K. Stockton, and Hideo Mabuchi,
perimental evidence of time-delay-induced death in cou- “Tensor polarizability and dispersive quantum measure-
pled limit-cycle oscillators,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 3381– ment of multilevel atoms,” Phys. Rev. A 73, 042112
3384 (2000). (2006).
[40] Aline Vochezer, Tobias Kampschulte, Klemens Ham-
merer, and Philipp Treutlein, “Light-mediated collective