MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2534536703 · doi:10.1098/rsta.2016.0217

Feedback traps for virtual potentials

2017· article· en· W2534536703 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicCold Atom Physics and Bose-Einstein Condensates
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOptical tweezersBrownian motionTrap (plumbing)Feedback loopPosition (finance)Measure (data warehouse)Object (grammar)Work (physics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Feedback traps are tools for trapping and manipulating single charged objects, such as molecules in solution. An alternative to optical tweezers and other single-molecule techniques, they use feedback to counteract the Brownian motion of a molecule of interest. The trap first acquires information about a molecule's position and then applies an electric feedback force to move the molecule. Since electric forces are stronger than optical forces at small scales, feedback traps are the best way to trap single molecules without 'touching' them (e.g. by putting them in a small box or attaching them to a tether). Feedback traps can do more than trap molecules: they can also subject a target object to forces that are calculated to be the gradient of a desired potential function U(x). If the feedback loop is fast enough, it creates a virtual potential whose dynamics will be very close to those of a particle in an actual potential U(x). But because the dynamics are entirely a result of the feedback loop-absent the feedback, there is only an object diffusing in a fluid-we are free to specify and then manipulate in time an arbitrary potential U(x,t). Here, we review recent applications of feedback traps to studies on the fundamental connections between information and thermodynamics, a topic where feedback plays an even more fundamental role. We discuss how recursive maximum-likelihood techniques allow continuous calibration, to compensate for drifts in experiments that last for days. We consider ways to estimate work and heat, using them to measure fluctuating energies to a precision of ±0.03 kT over these long experiments. Finally, we compare work and heat measurements of the costs of information erasure, the Landauer limit of kT ln 2 per bit of information erased. We argue that, when you want to know the average heat transferred to a bath in a long protocol, you should measure instead the average work and then infer the heat using the first law of thermodynamics.This article is part of the themed issue 'Horizons of cybernetical physics'.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePhilosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A Mathematical Physical and Engineering SciencesSame topicCold Atom Physics and Bose-Einstein CondensatesFrench-language works237,207