Arxiv:1710.04700V2 [Quant-Ph] 4 Dec 2017 Two Decades, Many Experiments Have Observed the Opti- Tor

Radiation-Pressure-Mediated Control of an Optomechanical Cavity

Jonathan Cripe,1 Nancy Aggarwal,2 Robinjeet Singh,1 Robert Lanza,2 Adam Libson,2 Min Jet Yap,3 Garrett D. Cole,4, 5 David E. McClelland,3 Nergis Mavalvala,2 and Thomas Corbitt1, ∗ 1Department of Physics & Astronomy, Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, 70808 2LIGO - Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139 3Australian National University, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 0200, Australia 4Vienna Center for Quantum Science and Technology (VCQ), Faculty of Physics, University of Vienna, A-1090 Vienna, Austria 5Crystalline Mirror Solutions LLC and GmbH, Santa Barbara, CA, and Vienna, Austria (Dated: December 5, 2017) We describe and demonstrate a method to control a detuned movable-mirror Fabry-Pérotcavity using radiation pressure in the presence of a strong optical spring. At frequencies below the optical spring resonance, self-locking of the cavity is achieved intrinsically by the optomechanical (OM) interaction between the cavity field and the movable end mirror. The OM interaction results in a high rigidity and reduced susceptibility of the mirror to external forces. However, due to a finite delay time in the cavity, this enhanced rigidity is accompanied by an anti-damping force, which destabilizes the cavity. The cavity is stabilized by applying external feedback in a frequency band around the optical spring resonance. The error signal is sensed in the amplitude quadrature of the transmitted beam with a photodetector. An amplitude modulator in the input path to the cavity modulates the light intensity to provide the stabilizing radiation pressure force.

I. INTRODUCTION [32, 33]. Signal-recycling and signal-extraction cavities have been used in the GEO 600 [34] and Advanced LIGO Cavity optomechanics, the interaction between electro- [35] gravitational wave detectors, and are planned to be magnetic radiation and mechanical motion, provides an used in Advanced VIRGO [36], and KAGRA [37]. ideal platform for measuring mechanical displacements For a blue-detuned high-finesse optomechanical Fabry- and preparing and detecting mechanical resonators in the Pérotcavity in which the cavity’s resonance frequency is quantum regime [1]. In a simple cavity-coupled optome- less than the laser frequency, the system’s effective mechanical system, the mechanical oscillator is driven by chanical resonance frequency is shifted to a higher fre- the radiation pressure force exerted by the probing laser quency than the mechanical oscillator’s eigenfrequency field. The fluctuations in the radiation pressure force via the addition of the optical spring constant. This due to power fluctuations modulate the motion of the leads to self-stabilization of the optomechanical system mechanical oscillator, effectively changing the length of at frequencies below the optical spring frequency [38]. the cavity and modifying the resonance condition of the At the optical spring frequency, however, the lag in opti- cavity. This leads to changes in the optical power cir- cal response due to the round trip optical delay leads to a culating inside the cavity, thus cyclically modulating the dominating anti-damping force that renders the system radiation pressure force exerted on the mechanical oscil- unstable [8, 9, 39]. Such anti-damping forces normally lator. This feedback results in the optical spring effect. require active feedback control to stabilize the optome- The optical spring effect was first discussed for Fabry- chanical dynamics [8, 39]. Perot cavities by Braginsky [2, 3]. Braginsky et al. [4], Conventionally, detuned cavities are locked by using a Buonanno and Chen [5], and Harms et al. [6] proposed simple “side of fringe” locking method. In this method using the optical bar and optical spring to enhance the the error signal is obtained from the slope of the cavity sensitivity of gravitational wave detectors. Over the past intensity profile on a transmission/reflection photodetec- arXiv:1710.04700v2 [quant-ph] 4 Dec 2017 two decades, many experiments have observed the opti- tor. This error signal is filtered and fed back to a piezo- cal spring in a variety of systems [1, 7–16] and used it electric actuator on the cavity mirror or to the frequency to optically cool mechanical resonators [17–25]. Further- of the laser. The lock bandwidth is limited by the piezo- more, proposals to increase the sensitivity of Michelson- electric device’s mechanical resonance frequency. The type gravitational wave detectors using the optical spring laser frequency modulation on the other hand has more effect have included adding a signal-recycling cavity [26– bandwidth, but requires a large actuation range for short 28], using a detuned cavity to amplify the interferomet- length cavities. As an alternative, in previous experi- ric signal [29], adding a signal-extraction cavity or reso- ments, we have demonstrated the stabilization of the op- nant sideband extraction [30, 31], and dynamically tun- tomechanical cavity by utilizing the double optical spring ing the cavities to follow a gravitational wave chirp signal effect [16]. In this paper, we introduce a new feedback control method to lock a movable mirror Fabry-Pérotcavity using radiation pressure. We have implemented this scheme ∗ [email protected] at two independent experiments at LSU and MIT. This 2

duces a force into a displacement. The optical cavity, in turn, transduces the displacement back into a radiation pressure force, forming a closed loop. For simplicity, we consider the frequency dependent susceptibility of a single mechanical resonance at Ωm, such that 1 χ = , (1) m 2 2 m (Ωm − Ω + iΩΓm) where Ω is frequency, m is the effective mass of the mode of oscillation, Γm = Ωm/Qm with Γm and Qm the mechanical damping and quality factor of the mechanical oscillator, respectively. [40]. The open-loop gain pertaining to the cavity’s closed- μ loop response as shown in Fig. 2 may be given in the limit Ω γ as [41] FIG. 1. Schematic of the experimental setup. The laser is passed through an amplitude modulator (AM), which mod- 32πχmPcav δγ 2iΩ Gos = − 2 1 − 2 ulates the intensity of the field before entering the detuned cλ0T (1 + δγ ) γ(1 + δγ ) optomechanical cavity. The light is detected in transmission 2iΩ of the cavity and passed through a high pass filter and servo = −χmK0 1 − 2 controller containing a gain and low pass filter component to γ[1 + δγ ] obtain the error signal which is fed back to the AM. The inset 2 = −mχm Ω − iΓosΩ , shows the scale of the moveable mirror that forms one of the os 2 cavity mirrors. Ωos ΓosΩ = 2 2 1 − i 2 (2) (Ωm − Ω + iΩΓm) Ωos scheme relies on the suppression of external disturbances where Pcav is the intra-cavity power, λo is the center by having a large in-loop optomechanical gain as a re- wavelength of the laser, c is the speed of light, T is sult of the large optical spring constant. This suppres- the total fraction of light leaving the cavity via loss and sion, which is mediated via the radiation pressure force, mirror transmissions, γ is the half width at half maxi- lowers the fluctuations in cavity length and power. A mum (HWHM) for the cavity optical resonance in rad/s, δ = δ = ωL−ωC is the dimensionless detuning of the schematic representation of the method is shown in Fig. γ γ γ 1, where the error signal is derived from the transmit- laser field from the cavity’s resonance, and K0 is the opti- ted power out of the cavity and is used to control the cal spring constant. The optical spring frequency is given 2 2 2 radiation pressure force acting on the cavity by modulat- by mΩos = K0, and its HWHM is Γos = 2Ωos/γ/(1+δγ ). ing the intensity of the input laser field passing through The real part of Eq. 2 corresponds to a position depen- an amplitude modulator (AM). An optimal error signal dent restoring force and the imaginary part corresponds is extracted by passing the transmitted field through a to a velocity dependent anti-damping force [42]. filter. This filter comprises of a gain and a band-pass The effective susceptibility of the system to a force is component. The gain and low-pass filter of the servo then controller are to stabilize the anti damping on the optical x χm χos = = spring. The high-pass filter is to avoid saturation of the Fext 1 + Gos AM actuator due to ambient/seismic fluctuations that 1 1 ≈ , (3) are largest at low frequencies (below a few kHz for a typ- 2 2 m Ω − Ω − iΓosΩ ical lab environment). These seismically and acoustically os driven fluctuations in cavity length are self-stabilized in where x is the displacement of the resonator, Fext, is an the optomechanical dynamics due to the high OM gain external force, and in the last step we assume that the at frequencies below optical spring. Ωos Ωm and Γos Γm. At frequencies below the optical spring frequency the ambient motion is therefore reduced by the factor

II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 2 χm Ωos ≈ 2 2 , (4) χos Ω − Ω + iΩΓm In understanding the noise stabilization of a strong op- m tical spring system with feedback, it is informative to with the approximation assuming Ωos Ω. This factor view the optical spring itself as a feedback mechanism. of suppression may be made very large if Ωos Ωm. In this view, a closed-loop feedback system is formed be- In the limit of a large optical spring frequency, the tween the mechanical oscillator and the optical cavity. optical spring provides suﬃcient stabilization to maintain The mechanical oscillator, with susceptibility χm, trans- cavity lock. Due to the negative damping (gain) of the 3

optical spring feedback, however, the system is unstable on its own. This can be seen by writing the closed-loop gain in the s-domain by substituting s = iΩ,. The closed- loop gain Gcl corresponding to this open-loop gain Gos is given by

1 Gcl = 1 + Gos 2 2 Ωm + s + sΓm = 2 2 2 (5) Ωm + s + sΓm + Ωos − sΓos

From the above expression, one can see that this closed- loop gain has at least one right-half-plane pole [43] and will thus be unstable. This system must be stabilized by an external damping force. The feedback may be local- ized to frequencies near the optical spring resonance, and its only purpose is to stabilize the unity gain crossing.

The main purpose of the applied feedback Gf shown in Fig. 3 is to change the shape of the phase response of the system so that the system is stable as well as has good stability margins. Radiation pressure is a natural transducer to stabilize such a system because there is strong coupling of radiation pressure by assumption. In addition, amplitude modulators have higher response bandwidth than FIG. 2. Detailed loop diagram for the cavity’s transfer func- piezoelectric actuators and better range than laser fre- tion. The amplitude modulator adds to the intra-cavity power quency modulation. Furthermore, because these systems P . The cavity power converts into radiation pressure force cav are typically operated detuned (within a few line-widths F , which then converts into cantilever displacement x via to achieve strong optical springs), the transmitted power its mechanical susceptibility χm. The displacement causes a length change for the cavity, leading again to a change in through the cavity is a natural readout of the cavity mo- the intracavity power via the cavity response C. This forms tion. a closed loop system.

III. EXPERIMENTAL SETUP

The schematic shown in Fig. 1 illustrates the experimental setup. The laser field from an NPRO Nd:YAG laser is passed through an amplitude modulator before passing through a half-wave plate and mode-matching lenses en route to the optomechanical cavity. The in- vacuum cavity is 1 cm long and consists of a 0.5-inch (12mm) diameter input mirror with a 1 cm radius of FIG. 3. Loop diagram for the feedback Gf . H is the response of the high pass filter and servo controller, and β is the re- curvature and a microresonator as the second mirror. sponse of the amplitude modulator. 1 is the closed loop The input mirror is mounted on a piezoelectric actua- 1+Gos response of the cavity’s optical spring system, as shown in Fig tor to allow for fine-tuning of the cavity length. The 4T1 1 2. Gin = 2 2 is the transfer function of the power input microresonator is fabricated from a stack of crystalline T 1+δγ to power inside the cavity with the effect of the detuning taken Al0.92Ga0.08As/GaAs layers. It has a diameter of 140 into account, and similarly Gout = T2 is the transfer function µm and a mass of about 500 ng [16, 44–47]. The from cavity power to transmitted power that is measured on microresonator has a natural mechanical frequency of the PD. Here T1 is the transmission of the input mirror, T2 Ωm = 2π × 288 Hz and a measured mechanical quality is the transmission of the microresonator, and T is the total factor Qm = 8000, which gives Γm = 2π × 36 mHz. loss of power from the cavity, in the form of transmission, The field transmitted through the cavity is detected scattering, absorption, etc. Gf = Gout × PD × H × β × Gin is calculated by using the measurements of the individual trans- by a photodetector. The photodetector signal is sent fer functions. through a high-pass filter and servo controller before be- ing used as the error signal to the amplitude modulator. 4

103 2 10 101 101 100 100

Gain -1 10-1 Gain 10 -2 -2 10 G G Measured 1/(1+G ) Model 1/(1+G ) 10 f os os os 10-3 10-3 225 180 180 135 135 90 90 45 45 0 0 -45 -45 -90 -135 -90 -180 -135 Phases (Degrees) Phases -180 -225 (Degrees) Phases 3 4 5 10 10 10 103 104 105 Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

FIG. 4. Transfer function measurements of the plant, GCL = G 1 FIG. 5. Measurement of the open-loop gain or f taken by shown in blue, the feedback, Gf shown in red, and the 1+Gos 1+Gos injecting a signal before H, done with a circulating power of open loop optical spring, Gos shown in pink. A model for the plant, shown in dashed cyan, is calculated with Eq. 2 0.2 W. Higher-order mechanical modes are visible at 1.4 kHz (yaw), 4.3 kHz (pitch), and 54 kHz (translation and yaw) are using the measured values for Ωos,Ωm, and Γm and setting shown in the inset. Unity-gain crossings are at 61 kHz and Γos so that the peak height and width match the measured ◦ ◦ Gf 93 kHz with phases 109 and −115 . The gain is 0.34 at data. Gcl is obtained using the open loop gain, , shown 1+Gos 250 kHz where the phase crosses −180◦. Thus, the system is in Fig. 5 and dividing out the measured Gf . The effect of the ◦ ◦ optical spring is visible with the peak at 75 kHz and a rise stable with phase margins of 71 and 65 , respectively, and a in phase of the plant transfer function. The measurement gain margin of 9.4 dB. begins to flatten out below 5 kHz due to other circuitous signal couplings (eg scattered light). Gos is then obtained from Gcl. The applied feedback loop is Gf . At 75 kHz, Gf which includes the photodetector (PD), the high-pass fil- has a magnitude of 0.53 and a phase of −80◦. ter and servo controller (H), and the amplitude modulator (AM), and multiplying them together. The high-pass filter has a corner frequency at 800 Hz and the servo con- IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION troller has a P-I corner at 100 kHz with a low frequency gain limit of 20 dB. We chose these values to supply suf- To help understand the feedback mechanisms and in- ficient phase margin while also attenuating the feedback dividual components of the feedback loops, Fig. 2 and at low-frequencies to avoid saturating the AM actuator. Fig. 3 show the loop diagrams for the feedback loop Gf The measurement of the elements of Gf is done without and the optical spring Gos. Measurements of the open using the cavity, so it gives the correct shape of Gf , but loop gain, plant transfer function, individual loop gains, does not provide the absolute scaling of the loop because and closed loop gain are described below. the effect of the cavity is not included. The calibrated Gf In Fig. 4, the blue curves show the plant transfer func- is obtained by taking the effect of the cavity into account tion, which is the system we would like to control. We using the open-loop gain measurement above the optical see a peak corresponding to the optical spring at around spring peak where 1 ≈ 1. 1+Gos 75 kHz in the magnitude. Since the system is unstable on Fig. 5 shows the measurement of the open loop gain its own, the plant transfer function is obtained using the taken by injecting a signal before H (Fig. 3) and measur- open loop gain measurement with the feedback on. This ing the response after PD. Since the measurement enters open loop gain is shown in Fig. 5, and we later divide it the Gos loop, the open loop transfer function is given Gf by the measured Gf , shown in red in Fig. 4 to obtain the by . The effect of the optical spring is also visi- 1+Gos plant transfer function. ble in Fig. 5 with a resonance peak at 75 kHz and a 2 Fig. 4 also shows the transfer function of the Gos loop, falloff with f below the optical spring. There are two which is obtained from the open loop transfer function unity-gain crossings at 61 kHz and 93 kHz with phases of ◦ ◦ shown in Fig. 5. The large magnitude of Gos at frequen- 109 and −115 . The gain at 250 kHz where the phase cies below the optical spring shows the large suppression crosses −180◦ has a magnitude of 0.34. Thus, the system that the system’s internal response is providing. is stable with phase margins of 71◦ and 65◦, respectively, The external electronic feedback loop, Gf , which is and a gain margin of 9.4 dB. We note that while the Gf used to stabilize the system, is shown in Fig. 4 in the shown in Fig. 4 does produce a stable system, it is not red curves. The measurement of Gf is obtained by mea- a unique solution. While other solutions for Gf may be suring the response of individual elements in the loop, more stable, the Gf we use is simple and achieves our goal 5

2 the output of the PD with Lp the change in the laser 10 f0 101 frequency for a given change in length for the laser piezo. The amount that low-frequency vibrations are reduced by 100 -1 is calculated by taking the ratio of the value of the mea-

10 surement above the optical spring frequency where the Gain 10-2 measurement is flat and the value of the measurement at 10-3 low frequencies, yielding a suppression of at least 50,000. 10-4 The response of the system to an external force is 180 x χ (1 + G ) 135 = m f . (7) 90 Fext 1 + Gos + Gf 45 According to Eq. 7, ambient fluctuations are sup- 0 pressed by the factor 1 + Gos + Gf . Since this factor is -45 in common in Eq. 6 and Eq. 7, the laser frequency scan -90 shown in Fig. 6 is an accurate measure of the suppression -135 Phases (Degrees) Phases -180 of ambient fluctuations. 104 Frequency (Hz) V. CONCLUSION

FIG. 6. Measurement of the closed-loop response performed In conclusion, we have demonstrated a stable feedback by modulating the laser frequency. This plot shows the sup- control method to lock a moveable mirror Fabry-Pérot pression of low-frequency frequency noise below the optical cavity using radiation pressure. In this scheme, the use spring frequency at ≈ 75 kHz. The amount of suppression is of radiation pressure as an actuator provides a large lock- calculated by taking the ratio of the measurement above the optical spring and at a low frequency below the optical spring. ing bandwidth compared to a piezoelectric device used Using the values at 100 kHz and 500 Hz, noise is suppressed in the simple “side of fringe” locking. We have exper- by a factor of at least 50,000. Higher order mechanical modes imentally shown that the system is stable and reduces are again visible at 1.4 kHz, 4.3 kHz, and 61 kHz. low-frequency disturbances by a factor of at least 50,000. The combination of the stable system and excellent low- frequency noise suppression allows the optomechanical of stabilizing the system. We also note that the measure- cavity to be operated on time scales of hours to days −2 without losing lock. With the low-frequency noise re- ment of Gos deviates from the expected f slope above ∼ 100 kHz. This is a result of imperfect measurements duced, we aim to measure broadband quantum radiation of the individual components of the loops, which leads to pressure noise and ponderomotive squeezing at frequencies relevant to Advanced LIGO. In addition, since the errors in the subtraction for the transfer functions of Gos and 1 . quadrature of the field inside the cavity is actually ro- 1+Gos tated with respect to the input field, the feedback gain Another result of the dynamics of the optomechani- could be increased by modulating in a different quadra- cal system is the reduced response to disturbances at ture. A modulation in an arbitrary quadrature can be frequencies below the optical spring frequency. Ambi- achieved by stitching together two amplitude modulator ent motion causes the cavity length to change by ∆L ∼ crystals and adding a relative drive between them [48]. 10−7m, while the cavity linewdith is ∆λ ∼ 10−11m. It This configuration could be useful if the negative damp- is therefore necessary to suppress the ambient motion in ing is too high to be compensated with a single amplitude order to operate the cavity. Fig. 4 shows the optical modulator. spring resonance at 75 kHz. According to Eq. 4, the ambient motion should be reduced at low frequencies by Ω2 os the factor 2 2 . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Ωm−Ω +iΩΓm To verify this calculation, we modulate the laser frequency, which in effect, is the same as introducing a dis- This work was supported by the National Science turbance δxext in Fig. 2. Fig. 6 shows a measurement Foundation CAREER grant PHY-1150531, as well as of PHY-1707840 and PHY-1404245. MY and DM receive support from the Australian Research Council through L G × C × PD − p out (6) project number CE170100004 (OzGrav). This docu- f0 1 + Gf + Gos ment has been assigned the LIGO document number ligo- p1700100. NA would like to thank Slawomir Gras and taken by modulating the laser frequency and measuring Aaron Buikema for valuable discussions and suggestions. 6

[1] M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, [17] C. H. Metzger and K. Karrai, “Cavity cooling of a mi- “Cavity optomechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 86, crolever,” Nature, vol. 432, pp. 1002–1005, Dec 2004. pp. 1391–1452, Dec 2014. [18] A. Naik, O. Buu, M. D. LaHaye, A. D. Armour, A. A. [2] V. B. Braginsky and I. I. Minakova, “Influence of Clerk, M. P. Blencowe, and K. C. Schwab, “Cooling a the small displacement measurements on the dynami- nanomechanical resonator with quantum back-action,” cal properties of mechanical oscillating systems,” Moscow Nature, vol. 443, pp. 193–196, Sep 2006. Univ. Phys. Bull., vol. 1, pp. 83–85, 1964. [19] S. Gigan, H. R. Bohm, M. Paternostro, F. Blaser, [3] V. B. Braginsky and A. B. Manukin, “Ponderomotive ef- G. Langer, J. B. Hertzberg, K. C. Schwab, D. Bauerle, fects of electromagnetic radiation,” Soviet Physics JETP, M. Aspelmeyer, and A. Zeilinger, “Self-cooling of a vol. 25, pp. 653–655, 1967. micromirror by radiation pressure,” Nature, vol. 444, [4] V. Braginsky, M. Gorodetsky, and F. Khalili, “Optical pp. 67–70, Nov 2006. bars in gravitational wave antennas,” Physics Letters A, [20] D. Kleckner and D. Bouwmeester, “Sub-kelvin opti- vol. 232, no. 5, pp. 340 – 348, 1997. cal cooling of a micromechanical resonator,” Nature, [5] A. Buonanno and Y. Chen, “Laser-interferometer vol. 444, pp. 75–78, Nov 2006. gravitational-wave optical-spring detectors,” Classical [21] O. Arcizet, P.-F. Cohadon, T. Briant, M. Pinard, and and Quantum Gravity, vol. 19, no. 7, p. 1569, 2002. A. Heidmann, “Radiation-pressure cooling and optome- [6] J. Harms, Y. Chen, S. Chelkowski, A. Franzen, chanical instability of a micromirror,” Nature, vol. 444, H. Vahlbruch, K. Danzmann, and R. Schnabel, pp. 71–74, Nov 2006. “Squeezed-input, optical-spring, signal-recycled [22] A. Schliesser, P. Del’Haye, N. Nooshi, K. J. Vahala, gravitational-wave detectors,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 68, and T. J. Kippenberg, “Radiation pressure cooling of a p. 042001, Aug 2003. micromechanical oscillator using dynamical backaction,” [7] B. S. Sheard, M. B. Gray, C. M. Mow-Lowry, D. E. Mc- Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 97, p. 243905, Dec 2006. Clelland, and S. E. Whitcomb, “Observation and char- [23] S. Mancini, D. Vitali, and P. Tombesi, “Optomechanical acterization of an optical spring,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 69, cooling of a macroscopic oscillator by homodyne feed- p. 051801, May 2004. back,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 80, pp. 688–691, Jan 1998. [8] T. Corbitt, D. Ottaway, E. Innerhofer, J. Pelc, and [24] T. Corbitt, C. Wipf, T. Bodiya, D. Ottaway, D. Sigg, N. Mavalvala, “Measurement of radiation-pressure- N. Smith, S. Whitcomb, and N. Mavalvala, “Optical di- induced optomechanical dynamics in a suspended fabry- lution and feedback cooling of a gram-scale oscillator to perot cavity,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 74, p. 021802, Aug 2006. 6.9 mk,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 99, p. 160801, Oct 2007. [9] T. J. Kippenberg, H. Rokhsari, T. Carmon, A. Scherer, [25] C. M. Mow-Lowry, A. J. Mullavey, S. Goßler, M. B. and K. J. Vahala, “Analysis of radiation-pressure induced Gray, and D. E. McClelland, “Cooling of a gram-scale mechanical oscillation of an optical microcavity,” Phys. cantilever flexure to 70 mk with a servo-modified optical Rev. Lett., vol. 95, p. 033901, Jul 2005. spring,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 100, p. 010801, Jan 2008. [10] T. Corbitt, Y. Chen, E. Innerhofer, H. Müller-Ebhardt, [26] B. J. Meers, “Recycling in laser-interferometric D. Ottaway, H. Rehbein, D. Sigg, S. Whitcomb, C. Wipf, gravitational-wave detectors,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 38, and N. Mavalvala, “An all-optical trap for a gram-scale pp. 2317–2326, Oct 1988. mirror,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 98, p. 150802, Apr 2007. [27] G. Heinzel, K. A. Strain, J. Mizuno, K. D. Skeldon, [11] D. Kelley, J. Lough, F. Mangaña-Sandoval, A. Perreca, B. Willke, W. Winkler, R. Schilling, A. Rüdiger,and and S. W. Ballmer, “Observation of photothermal feed- K. Danzmann, “Experimental demonstration of a sus- back in a stable dual-carrier optical spring,” Phys. Rev. pended dual recycling interferometer for gravitational D, vol. 92, p. 062003, Sep 2015. wave detection,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 81, pp. 5493–5496, [12] A. Sawadsky, H. Kaufer, R. M. Nia, S. P. Tarabrin, F. Y. Dec 1998. Khalili, K. Hammerer, and R. Schnabel, “Observation [28] A. Buonanno and Y. Chen, “Signal recycled laser- of generalized optomechanical coupling and cooling on interferometer gravitational-wave detectors as optical cavity resonance,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 114, p. 043601, springs,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 65, p. 042001, Jan 2002. Jan 2015. [29] P. Verlot, A. Tavernarakis, T. Briant, P.-F. Cohadon, [13] M. Hossein-Zadeh and K. J. Vahala, “Observation of op- and A. Heidmann, “Backaction amplification and quan- tical spring effect in a microtoroidal optomechanical res- tum limits in optomechanical measurements,” Phys. Rev. onator,” Opt. Lett., vol. 32, pp. 1611–1613, Jun 2007. Lett., vol. 104, p. 133602, Mar 2010. [14] M. P. Edgar, J. Macarthur, B. W. Barr, S. Hild, S. Hut- [30] J. Mizuno, K. Strain, P. Nelson, J. Chen, R. Schilling, tner, B. Sorazu, and K. A. Strain, “Demonstration of an A. Rüdiger,W. Winkler, and K. Danzmann, “Resonant optical spring in the 100 g mirror regime,” Classical and sideband extraction: a new configuration for interfero- Quantum Gravity, vol. 33, no. 7, p. 075007, 2016. metric gravitational wave detectors,” Physics Letters A, [15] N. A. Gordon, B. W. Barr, A. Bell, C. Graef, S. Hild, vol. 175, no. 5, pp. 273 – 276, 1993. S. H. Huttner, S. S. Leavey, J. Macarthur, B. Sorazu, [31] G. Heinzel, J. Mizuno, R. Schilling, W. Winkler, J. Wright, and K. A. Strain, “Experimental demonstra- A. Rüdiger, and K. Danzmann, “An experimental tion of coupled optical springs,” Classical and Quantum demonstration of resonant sideband extraction for laser- Gravity, vol. 34, no. 3, p. 035020, 2017. interferometric gravitational wave detectors,” Physics [16] R. Singh, G. D. Cole, J. Cripe, and T. Corbitt, “Stable Letters A, vol. 217, no. 6, pp. 305 – 314, 1996. optical trap from a single optical field utilizing birefrin- [32] B. J. Meers, A. Krolak, and J. A. Lobo, “Dynamically gence,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 117, p. 213604, Nov 2016. tuned interferometers for the observation of gravitational 7

waves from coalescing compact binaries,” Phys. Rev. D, works well for this analysis. This is because the higher- vol. 47, pp. 2184–2197, Mar 1993. order modes have a larger effective mass than the funda- [33] D. A. Simakov, “Time-domain analysis of a dynamically mental mode due to their poor overlap with the cavity tuned signal recycled interferometer for the detection of mode and hence don’t contribute much to the broadband chirp gravitational waves from coalescing compact bina- behavior. ries,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 90, p. 102003, Nov 2014. [41] N. Aggarwal and N. Mavalvala, “Closed loop response [34] C. Affeldt, K. Danzmann, K. L. Dooley, H. Grote, M. He- of an optomechanical cavity using classical physics,” In witson, S. Hild, J. Hough, J. Leong, H. Lück, M. Pri- Preparation. jatelj, S. Rowan, A. Rüdiger,R. Schilling, R. Schnabel, [42] This force will be anti-restoring and damping for a red E. Schreiber, B. Sorazu, K. A. Strain, H. Vahlbruch, detuned laser. B. Willke, W. Winkler, and H. Wittel, “Advanced tech- [43] the terms in the denominator are not all of the same sign. niques in geo 600,” Classical and Quantum Gravity, [44] G. D. Cole, S. Gröblacher, K. Gugler, S. Gigan, vol. 31, no. 22, p. 224002, 2014. and M. Aspelmeyer, “Monocrystalline AlxGa1−xAs het- [35] J. A. et al., “Advanced ligo,” Classical and Quantum erostructures for high-reflectivity high-q micromechani- Gravity, vol. 32, no. 7, p. 074001, 2015. cal resonators in the megahertz regime,” Applied Physics [36] F. A. et al., “Advanced virgo: a second-generation in- Letters, vol. 92, no. 26, p. 261108, 2008. terferometric gravitational wave detector,” Classical and [45] G. D. Cole, “Cavity optomechanics with low-noise crys- Quantum Gravity, vol. 32, no. 2, p. 024001, 2015. talline mirrors,” in Proc. SPIE 8458, Optics & Photon- [37] K. Somiya, “Detector configuration of kagra–the japanese ics, Optical Trapping and Optical Micromanipulation IX, cryogenic gravitational-wave detector,” Classical and p. 845807, SPIE, August 2012. Quantum Gravity, vol. 29, no. 12, p. 124007, 2012. [46] G. D. Cole, W. Zhang, M. J. Martin, J. Ye, and M. As- [38] T. Corbitt, Y. Chen, F. Khalili, D. Ottaway, S. Vy- pelmeyer, “Tenfold reduction of brownian noise in high- atchanin, S. Whitcomb, and N. Mavalvala, “Squeezed- reflectivity optical coatings,” Nat Photon, vol. 7, pp. 644– state source using radiation-pressure-induced rigidity,” 650, Aug. 2013. Phys. Rev. A, vol. 73, p. 023801, Feb 2006. [47] G. D. Cole, W. Zhang, B. J. Bjork, D. Follman, P. Heu, [39] O. Miyakawa, R. Ward, R. Adhikari, M. Evans, B. Ab- C. Deutsch, L. Sonderhouse, J. Robinson, C. Franz, bott, R. Bork, D. Busby, J. Heefner, A. Ivanov, M. Smith, A. Alexandrovski, M. Notcutt, O. H. Heckl, J. Ye, R. Taylor, S. Vass, A. Weinstein, M. Varvella, S. Kawa- and M. Aspelmeyer, “High-performance near- and mid- mura, F. Kawazoe, S. Sakata, and C. Mow-Lowry, “Mea- infrared crystalline coatings,” Optica, vol. 3, pp. 647–656, surement of optical response of a detuned resonant side- Jun 2016. band extraction gravitational wave detector,” Phys. Rev. [48] W. Yam, E. Davis, S. Ackley, M. Evans, and N. Maval- D, vol. 74, p. 022001, Jul 2006. vala, “Continuously tunable modulation scheme for pre- [40] A more realistic form including multiple resonances could cision control of optical cavities with variable detuning,” be used instead, but the single resonance susceptibility Opt. Lett., vol. 40, pp. 3675–3678, Aug 2015.