Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Ultracompact 4H-silicon carbide optomechanical resonator with $f_m\cdot Q_m$ exceeding $10^{13}$ Hz

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A 4.3-micron 4H-SiC microdisk resonator reaches an 18.2 THz frequency-quality product, among the best for room-temperature optomechanical cavities.

desk verdict A solid fabrication-first demonstration of integrated 4H-SiC optomechanics; the headline f_m·Q_m is probably within ~20% of true, and the missing power-dependence data should be supplied. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.07206 v1 pith:WEHIEU34 submitted 2025-05-12 physics.optics physics.app-ph

Yuncong Liu , Wenhan Sun , Hamed Abiri , Philip X.-L. Feng , Qing Li This is my paper · ORCID
classification physics.opticsphysics.app-ph
keywords optomechanics4H-siliconcarbidemicrodiskresonatorradialbreathingmodewhispering-gallerymechanicalqualityfactoroptomechanicaloscillationsilicon-carbide-on-insulator
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper aims to establish 4H-silicon carbide as a practical material for integrated, chip-scale optomechanics by demonstrating a suspended microdisk that doubles as a low-loss optical cavity and a high-frequency mechanical resonator. The central result is a fundamental radial-breathing mode at 950 MHz with a mechanical quality factor of $1.92\times10^4$, giving a frequency-quality product of $1.82\times10^{13}$ Hz—on par with the highest values reported for whispering-gallery-mode optomechanical microresonators tested in air at room temperature. The device is fabricated on a 4H-SiC-on-insulator wafer and accessed through an on-chip waveguide, solving the integration bottleneck that had limited earlier SiC mechanical resonators. The same platform also supports regenerative optomechanical oscillations at a threshold dropped power of 14 $\mu$W, with harmonic generation up to the fifth order. The work positions 4H-SiC photonics as a viable platform for precision sensing, metrology, and optomechanical signal processing in ambient environments.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the suspended 4.3-$\mu$m-radius 4H-SiC microdisk with an undercut ratio near 80%, which co-localizes a TE00 whispering-gallery optical mode and the fundamental radial breathing mechanical mode; the moving-boundary optomechanical coupling ($g_0/2\pi \approx 15$ kHz) transduces thermal motion into a photodetected RF spectrum from which the mechanical frequency and quality factor are fit.

What would settle it

Measure the mechanical linewidth as a function of dropped power from well below 1 $\mu$W to above 10 $\mu$W on both the blue and red sides of the split optical resonance, and compare the extracted values with a damped-oscillator model that includes the doublet; if $Q_m$ varies with power or detuning, the claimed intrinsic value—and thus the $f_m\cdot Q_m$ product—is not established.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the first integrated optomechanical resonator in the 4H-SiC-on-insulator platform: a suspended 4.3-$\mu$m-radius microdisk with an on-chip tapered waveguide that simultaneously provides a high-finesse optical resonance and a nearly one-gigahertz mechanical mode. The TE00 whispering-gallery mode shows an intrinsic optical quality factor up to about $1.2\times10^6$ (with a representative $3.4\times10^5$ at 1592 nm), while the fundamental radial breathing mode is measured at 950.14 MHz with a mechanical quality factor of $1.92\times10^4$ extracted from a damped-harmonic-oscillator fit of the thermal noise spectrum. The authors report that the mechanical linewidth does not change for dropped powers below 10 $\mu$W, which they take as evidence that the measured $Q_m$ reflects intrinsic damping rather than optical back-action. The resulting frequency-quality product, $1.82\times10^{13}$ Hz, places this device among the highest reported for whispering-gallery-mode optomechanical cavities operated in ambient air at room temperature, and the strong optomechanical coupling drives self-sustained oscillations at a threshold of about 14 $\mu$W, with harmonics visible up to the fifth order.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the mechanical quality factor of $1.92\times10^4$, extracted from a thermal-noise spectrum at roughly 2.5 $\mu$W dropped power on the blue side of a mode-split resonance, reflects the intrinsic damping of the microdisk rather than an optical back-action or fit artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • 4H-SiC microdisks can be lithographically integrated with waveguides on a chip, enabling on-chip optomechanical sensing and signal processing without free-space optics or external actuation.
  • The combination of below 1 dB/cm optical loss, 950 MHz mechanical frequency, and room-temperature operation makes the platform suitable for compact gyroscopes, accelerometers, and force sensors in ambient environments.
  • The 14 $\mu$W self-oscillation threshold suggests that optomechanical oscillators and frequency comb generators can be driven by modest on-chip optical powers, compatible with integrated photonic circuits.
  • The frequency-quality product, on par with established WGM platforms such as AlN and diamond, implies that 4H-SiC can compete in applications that previously required vacuum or cryogenic conditions.
  • The observed degradation of $Q_m$ with increasing disk radius points to anchor loss through the pedestal, so deeper undercutting or phononic shielding may push the product closer to the Akhiezer limit.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Because the claimed $Q_m$ independence below 10 $\mu$W is asserted without a shown power sweep, an immediate check is to publish the full linewidth-versus-power curve; if the linewidth varies above about 5 $\mu$W, the quoted frequency-quality product would need revision.
  • If the mode-split optical resonance is properly modeled, the experimental threshold power of 14 $\mu$W (below the Lorentzian prediction of 19 $\mu$W) suggests that photoelastic coupling and doublet dynamics contribute significantly; this could be tested by measuring the threshold across several laser detunings.
  • The same device, operated on the red side of the resonance, should exhibit optomechanically induced transparency or back-action cooling; observing a linewidth change with detuning would confirm the coupling mechanism independently.
  • The 3.8 GHz mode, possibly a modal-coupling artifact, could be identified by finite-element modal analysis including the pedestal; resolving its origin would clarify whether higher-order RBMs are suppressed or simply shifted.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports the fabrication and optomechanical characterization of a suspended 4H-SiC-on-insulator microdisk resonator with integrated waveguide access. For a 4.3-μm-radius disk, the fundamental radial breathing mode is measured at 950.14 MHz with Q_m = 1.92e4, yielding the headline f_m·Q_m = 1.82e13 Hz, which the authors benchmark against existing whispering-gallery-mode optomechanical resonators in ambient air. The paper also reports intrinsic optical Q factors up to about 1.2e6, a displacement sensitivity of 0.144 fm/Hz^1/2, self-sustained optomechanical oscillations with a threshold dropped power of about 14 μW, and harmonic generation up to the fifth order.

Significance. If the central measurement holds, this is a useful advance: it is the first integrated 4H-SiCOI optomechanical resonator with on-chip waveguide access, a compact footprint, and a competitive f_m·Q_m product measured in air. Strengths include the good agreement between the simulated (945.93 MHz) and measured (950.14 MHz) mechanical frequency, the clean damped-harmonic fit used to extract Q_m, the demonstration of strong optomechanical back-action via self-oscillation and harmonics, and the reported threshold of 14 μW, which is close to the SI model's 19 μW prediction. However, the headline benchmark rests on the unverified claim that Q_m is independent of optical power, and on combining champion values from different devices; these points must be resolved before the metric can be taken at face value.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 4(c)] The claim that the measured Q_m = 1.92×10^4 is the intrinsic mechanical quality factor rests on the undocumented sentence 'this value does not vary with the optical dropped power provided that it is small enough (P_d < 10 μW),' but no power-dependence data are shown. At the stated readout condition (P_d ≈ 2.5 μW, blue side of the resonance), the paper's own self-oscillation threshold P_th ≈ 14 μW (Fig. 6d) implies, in the same linearized optomechanical model on which Eq. S2 is based, an anti-damping rate Γ_OM ≈ (2.5/14)Γ_m ≈ 0.18Γ_m. The measured linewidth would therefore be roughly 0.82Γ_m, so the reported Q_m would be inflated by about 22%; correcting for this gives Q_m ≈ 1.57×10^4 and f_m·Q_m ≈ 1.49×10^13 Hz rather than 1.82×10^13 Hz. The authors should provide a measured P_d sweep of the fitted linewidth on the 4.3-μm device up to at least 10 μW, together with a back-action model appropriate for the mode-split resonance, to justify treating 1.82×10^13 Hz as the intrinsic product.
  2. [Sec. 3.3 and SI Eq. S2] There is an internal tension between the flat-Q_m assertion and the threshold measurement. If Q_m is truly independent of P_d up to 10 μW, then the optomechanical anti-damping at P_d = 2.5 μW must be negligible, which is hard to reconcile with a self-oscillation threshold of only 14 μW under the same Lorentzian model. The paper's own SI caveat—that mode splitting and photoelastic effects may require revision of Eq. S2—means that the threshold prediction cannot be used to rule out a substantial back-action correction to Q_m at the readout power. Please add a quantitative consistency check, for example comparing the measured linewidth-versus-P_d curve with the anti-damping rate inferred from P_th on the same device.
  3. [Abstract and Sec. 3.1] The claimed '<1 dB/cm' optical loss is not substantiated by a direct propagation-loss measurement; the only evidence presented is doublet-fitted intrinsic Q values (Fig. 3c and Fig. 4a). Moreover, the highest optical Q (≈1.2×10^6) is obtained for a 4.5-μm-radius disk, whereas the headline mechanical Q_m is obtained for a 4.3-μm-radius disk with Q_o ≈ 3.4×10^5 (Fig. 4a). The benchmark f_m·Q_m product therefore combines champion values from different devices. The manuscript should report simultaneously measured optical and mechanical values for the specific device used for the headline product, and either supply a direct waveguide-loss measurement or restate the '<1 dB/cm' claim as an inference from Q_o.
  4. [Sec. 3.2, Fig. 5] No uncertainties or repeated-device statistics are provided for f_m, Q_m, Q_o, or P_th; Fig. 5 shows a single data point per radius and no error bars, yet the text interprets the trend as a 'consistent degradation.' Because the paper's contribution is a comparative benchmark, at least a small number of nominally identical devices should be measured to establish reproducibility, and the spread should be reported in the text or in Table 1.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figs. 4 and 6] The word 'Frequency' is misspelled as 'Frequnecy' in the frequency-axis labels of Figs. 4 and 6; please correct.
  2. [Table 1 caption] The caption contains a duplicated 'of' in 'Survey of of reported optomechanical and electromechanical microresonators.'
  3. [Supplementary Eq. S1] In the definition of S_v,total, the same symbol S_v,th is used twice in the explanatory sentence; one occurrence should be S_v,sys.
  4. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (1)] The displacement-sensitivity calibration uses m_eff = 71 pg from simulation; a brief sensitivity statement on how uncertainty in m_eff affects the inferred responsivity and displacement sensitivity would help the reader judge the calibration.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

Headline metric is directly measured, and the only forward prediction (oscillation threshold) is independently computed and compared, so no significant circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain is measurement-led rather than model-derived. The headline f_m·Q_m = 1.82×10^13 Hz is directly formed from the measured RF peak frequency of 950.14 MHz and the damped-oscillator fit linewidth yielding Q_m = 1.92×10^4 (Fig. 4c); neither quantity is an output of a model that contains the claimed result. The only forward prediction in the paper, the 19 µW oscillation threshold from Eq. S2, uses independently stated or simulated parameters (m_eff, g_OM, Γ_0, Γ_t, Δ) and is compared with the measured 14 µW threshold; the 26% discrepancy is reported rather than absorbed into a fit, which is the opposite of circular. The optomechanical coupling and displacement calibration follow standard formulas (Eq. 1 and Eq. S1) with parameters from FEM simulation and the measured noise floor; they do not define the metrics they are used to quote. Self-citations (Refs. 36, 39, 48) cover grating-coupler design, the damped-harmonic-oscillator fitting model, and Brownian-motion calibration; these are standard or externally grounded methods, not a self-imported uniqueness theorem, and none constrains the central claim by definition. The unshown power-independence check for Q_m is a measurement-confidence concern, not a circularity, because no fitted input is renamed as a prediction and no equation reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are needed for the headline fm*Qm, which is a direct measurement of a fitted resonance line. The threshold and displacement calibrations rely on standard optomechanics formulas with FEM or measured inputs; these do not determine the central result. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption FEM simulation with EY=535 GPa, Poisson ratio 0.183, and density 3210 kg/m3 predicts the mechanical mode frequencies and effective mass.
    Used to identify the 950-MHz mode and to compute meff=71 pg in Eq. (1) and Table S1; the 0.4% frequency mismatch supports but does not prove the model.
  • standard math Thermomechanical displacement PSD formula Eq. (1) applies at 300 K.
    Standard result from Cleland [40], used to calibrate displacement sensitivity; assumes linear damping and thermal equilibrium.
  • domain assumption The doublet model correctly separates intrinsic and loaded optical quality factors.
    Used in Sec. 3.1 to fit mode-split resonances; no independent verification of the doublet fit is provided.
  • domain assumption The threshold power formula Eq. S2 for a Lorentzian resonance applies to this device.
    Authors themselves state it may need revision for mode-split resonances and photoelastic effects (SI Sec. 2), so the 19 uW prediction is not a strong test.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Ultracompact 4H-silicon carbide optomechanical resonator with $f_m\cdot Q_m$ exceeding $10^{13}$ Hz." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WEHIEU34

@misc{pith2026250507206,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Ultracompact 4H-silicon carbide optomechanical resonator with $f_m\cdot Q_m$ exceeding $10^13$ Hz},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WEHIEU34}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.07206}
}
abstract

Silicon carbide (SiC) has great potential for optomechanical applications due to its outstanding optical and mechanical properties. However, challenges associated with SiC nanofabrication have constrained its adoption in optomechanical devices, as embodied by the considerable optical loss or lack of integrated optical access in existing mechanical resonators. In this work, we overcome such challenges and demonstrate a low-loss, ultracompact optomechanical resonator in an integrated 4H-SiC-on-insulator (4H-SiCOI) photonic platform for the first time. Based on a suspended $4.3$-$\mu$m-radius microdisk, the SiC optomechanical resonator features low optical loss ($<1$ dB/cm), a high mechanical frequency $f_m$ of $0.95 \times 10^9$ Hz, a mechanical quality factor $Q_m$ of $1.92\times10^4$, and a footprint of $<1\times 10^{-5}$ mm$^2$. The corresponding $f_m\cdot Q_m$ product is estimated to be $1.82 \times 10^{13}$ Hz, which is among the highest reported values of optomechanical cavities tested in an ambient environment at room temperature. In addition, the strong optomechanical coupling in the SiC microdisk enables coherent regenerative optomechanical oscillations at a threshold optical dropped power of 14 $\mu$W, which also supports efficient harmonic generation at increased power levels. With such competitive performance, we envision a range of chip-scale optomechanical applications to be enabled by the low-loss 4H-SiCOI platform.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.07206 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Schematic of the silicon carbide (SiC) cavity optomechanical system and its [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Experimental setup for the optomechanical measurement, where the slow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. (a) Scanning electron micrograph of a waveguide-coupled SiC microdisk. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a) Linear transmission of a suspended 4.3-𝜇m-radius SiC microdisk resonator. The insets are the zoomed resonances for the TE00 and TE10 modes at 1592 nm and 1610 nm, respectively, with the red dashed lines representing numerical fitting based on a doublet model.(b) Op…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Summary of measured mechanical quality factors ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (a) Evolution of the photodetected RF spectrum near the resonant frequency of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Cavity optomechanics,

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, “Cavity optomechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1391–1452 (2014)

    2014

  2. [2]

    Characterization of a radiation-pressure-driven micromechanical oscillator,

    M. Hossein-Zadeh, H. Rokhsari, A. Hajimiri, and K. J. Vahala, “Characterization of a radiation-pressure-driven micromechanical oscillator,” Phys. Rev. A74, 023813 (2006)

    work page 2006

  3. [3]

    A monolithic radiation-pressure driven, low phase noise silicon nitride opto-mechanical oscillator,

    S. Tallur, S. Sridaran, and S. A. Bhave, “A monolithic radiation-pressure driven, low phase noise silicon nitride opto-mechanical oscillator,” Opt. Express19, 24522–24529 (2011)

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    An integrated low phase noise radiation-pressure-driven optomechanical oscillator chipset,

    X. Luan, Y. Huang, Y. Li, J. F. McMillan, J. Zheng, S.-W. Huang, P.-C. Hsieh, T. Gu, D. Wang, A. Hatiet al., “An integrated low phase noise radiation-pressure-driven optomechanical oscillator chipset,” Sci. Reports4, 6842 (2014)

    work page 2014

  5. [5]

    Squeezed light from a silicon micromechanical resonator,

    A. H. Safavi-Naeini, S. Gröblacher, J. T. Hill, J. Chan, M. Aspelmeyer, and O. Painter, “Squeezed light from a silicon micromechanical resonator,” Nature500, 185–189 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    Nanomechanical coupling between microwave and optical photons,

    J. Bochmann, A. Vainsencher, D. D. Awschalom, and A. N. Cleland, “Nanomechanical coupling between microwave and optical photons,” Nat. Phys.9, 712–716 (2013)

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    Coherent coupling between radiofrequency, optical and acoustic waves in piezo-optomechanical circuits,

    K. C. Balram, M. I. Davanço, J. D. Song, and K. Srinivasan, “Coherent coupling between radiofrequency, optical and acoustic waves in piezo-optomechanical circuits,” Nat. Photonics10, 346–352 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Nanocavity optomechanical torque magnetometry and radiofrequency susceptometry,

    M. Wu, N. L.-Y. Wu, T. Firdous, F. Fani Sani, J. E. Losby, M. R. Freeman, and P. E. Barclay, “Nanocavity optomechanical torque magnetometry and radiofrequency susceptometry,” Nat. Nanotechnol.12, 127–131 (2017)

    work page 2017

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    Cavity optomechanical sensing,

    B.-B. Li, L. Ou, Y. Lei, and Y.-C. Liu, “Cavity optomechanical sensing,” Nanophotonics10, 2799–2832 (2021)

    2021

  2. [10]

    High-Q silicon optomechanical microdisk resonators at gigahertz frequencies,

    X. Sun, X. Zhang, and H. X. Tang, “High-Q silicon optomechanical microdisk resonators at gigahertz frequencies,” Appl. Phys. Lett.100 (2012)

    2012

  3. [11]

    Very-high-frequency probes for atomic force microscopy with silicon optomechanics,

    L. Schwab, P. Allain, N. Mauran, X. Dollat, L. Mazenq, D. Lagrange, M. Gély, S. Hentz, G. Jourdan, I. Faveroet al., “Very-high-frequency probes for atomic force microscopy with silicon optomechanics,” Microsystems & Nanoeng.8, 32 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    High-efficiency low-noise optomechanical crystal photon-phonon transducers,

    S. Sonar, U. Hatipoglu, S. Meesala, D. P. Lake, H. Ren, and O. Painter, “High-efficiency low-noise optomechanical crystal photon-phonon transducers,” Optica12, 99–104 (2025)

    2025

  5. [13]

    On-chip mechanical exceptional points based on an optomechanical zipper cavity,

    N. Wu, K. Cui, Q. Xu, X. Feng, F. Liu, W. Zhang, and Y. Huang, “On-chip mechanical exceptional points based on an optomechanical zipper cavity,” Sci. Adv.9, eabp8892 (2023)

    2023

  6. [14]

    Analysis of radiation-pressure induced mechanical oscillation of an optical microcavity,

    T. Kippenberg, H. Rokhsari, T. Carmon, A. Scherer, and K. Vahala, “Analysis of radiation-pressure induced mechanical oscillation of an optical microcavity,” Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 033901 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Chip-based silica microspheres for cavity optomechanics,

    X. Jiang, M. Wang, M. C. Kuzyk, T. Oo, G.-L. Long, and H. Wang, “Chip-based silica microspheres for cavity optomechanics,” Opt. Express23, 27260–27265 (2015)

    2015

  8. [16]

    Taming brillouin optomechanics using supermode microresonators,

    M. Wang, Z.-G. Hu, C. Lao, Y. Wang, X. Jin, X. Zhou, Y. Lei, Z. Wang, W. Liu, Q.-F. Yanget al., “Taming brillouin optomechanics using supermode microresonators,” Phys. Rev. X14, 011056 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    Electromagnetically induced transparency and wideband wavelength conversion in silicon nitride microdisk optomechanical resonators,

    Y. Liu, M. Davanço, V. Aksyuk, and K. Srinivasan, “Electromagnetically induced transparency and wideband wavelength conversion in silicon nitride microdisk optomechanical resonators,” Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 223603 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Invited article: Tuning and stabilization of optomechanical crystal cavities through nems integration,

    K. E. Grutter, M. I. Davanço, K. C. Balram, and K. Srinivasan, “Invited article: Tuning and stabilization of optomechanical crystal cavities through nems integration,” APL Photonics3(2018)

    2018

  11. [19]

    A 10-GHz film-thickness-mode cavity optomechanical resonator,

    X. Han, K. Y. Fong, and H. X. Tang, “A 10-GHz film-thickness-mode cavity optomechanical resonator,” Appl. Phys. Lett. 106 (2015)

    2015

  12. [20]

    Time-reversalsymmetrybreakingwithacousticpumpingofnanophotoniccircuits,

    D.B.Sohn,S.Kim,andG.Bahl,“Time-reversalsymmetrybreakingwithacousticpumpingofnanophotoniccircuits,” Nat. Photonics12, 91–97 (2018)

    2018

  13. [21]

    Single-crystal diamond low-dissipation cavity optomechanics,

    M. Mitchell, B. Khanaliloo, D. P. Lake, T. Masuda, J. P. Hadden, and P. E. Barclay, “Single-crystal diamond low-dissipation cavity optomechanics,” Optica3, 963–970 (2016)

    2016

  14. [22]

    Diamond optomechanical crystals,

    M. J. Burek, J. D. Cohen, S. M. Meenehan, N. El-Sawah, C. Chia, T. Ruelle, S. Meesala, J. Rochman, H. A. Atikian, M. Markhamet al., “Diamond optomechanical crystals,” Optica3, 1404–1411 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Optomechanics with one-dimensional gallium phosphide photonic crystal cavities,

    K.Schneider,Y.Baumgartner,S.Hönl,P.Welter,H.Hahn,D.J.Wilson,L.Czornomaz,andP.Seidler,“Optomechanics with one-dimensional gallium phosphide photonic crystal cavities,” Optica6, 577–584 (2019)

    2019

  16. [24]

    Optomechanical ring resonator for efficient microwave-optical frequency conversion,

    I.-T. Chen, B. Li, S. Lee, S. Chakravarthi, K.-M. Fu, and M. Li, “Optomechanical ring resonator for efficient microwave-optical frequency conversion,” Nat. Commun.14, 7594 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Chip-scale cavity optomechanics in lithium niobate,

    W. C. Jiang and Q. Lin, “Chip-scale cavity optomechanics in lithium niobate,” Sci. Reports6, 36920 (2016)

    2016

  18. [26]

    High frequency lithium niobate film-thickness-mode optomechanical resonator,

    M. Shen, J. Xie, C.-L. Zou, Y. Xu, W. Fu, and H. X. Tang, “High frequency lithium niobate film-thickness-mode optomechanical resonator,” Appl. Phys. Lett.117 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Lithium niobate piezo-optomechanical crystals,

    W. Jiang, R. N. Patel, F. M. Mayor, T. P. McKenna, P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, C. J. Sarabalis, J. D. Witmer, R. Van Laer, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, “Lithium niobate piezo-optomechanical crystals,” Optica6, 845–853 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Polytype control of spin qubits in silicon carbide,

    A. L. Falk, B. B. Buckley, G. Calusine, W. F. Koehl, V. V. Dobrovitski, A. Politi, C. A. Zorman, P. X.-L. Feng, and D. D. Awschalom, “Polytype control of spin qubits in silicon carbide,” Nat. Commun.4, 1819 (2013)

    2013

  21. [29]

    Silicon carbide zipper photonic crystal optomechanical cavities,

    X. Lu, J. Y. Lee, and Q. Lin, “Silicon carbide zipper photonic crystal optomechanical cavities,” Appl. physics letters 116(2020)

    2020

  22. [30]

    Low-dissipation nanomechanical devices from monocrystalline silicon carbide,

    L. Sementilli, D. M. Lukin, H. Lee, J. Yang, E. Romero, J. Vučković, and W. P. Bowen, “Low-dissipation nanomechanical devices from monocrystalline silicon carbide,” Nano Lett.25, 6069–6075 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    4H silicon carbide bulk acoustic wave gyroscope with ultra-high Q-factor for on-chip inertial navigation,

    Z. Liu, Y. Long, C. Wehner, H. Wen, and F. Ayazi, “4H silicon carbide bulk acoustic wave gyroscope with ultra-high Q-factor for on-chip inertial navigation,” Commun. Eng.3 (2024)

    2024

  24. [32]

    Limits of quality factor in bulk-mode micromechanical resonators,

    S. Chandorkar, M. Agarwal, R. Melamud, R. Candler, K. Goodson, and T. Kenny, “Limits of quality factor in bulk-mode micromechanical resonators,” in2008 IEEE 21st international conference on micro electro mechanical systems,(IEEE, 2008), pp. 74–77

    2008

  25. [33]

    Energy dissipation in micromechanical resonators,

    F. Ayazi, L. Sorenson, and R. Tabrizian, “Energy dissipation in micromechanical resonators,” inMicro-and Nanotechnology Sensors, Systems, and Applications III,vol. 8031 (SPIE, 2011), pp. 371–383

    2011

  26. [34]

    Quantum limit of quality factor in silicon micro and nano mechanical resonators,

    S. Ghaffari, S. A. Chandorkar, S. Wang, E. J. Ng, C. H. Ahn, V. Hong, Y. Yang, and T. W. Kenny, “Quantum limit of quality factor in silicon micro and nano mechanical resonators,” Sci. Reports3, 3244 (2013)

    2013

  27. [35]

    High-frequency and high-quality silicon carbide optomechanical microresonators,

    X. Lu, J. Y. Lee, and Q. Lin, “High-frequency and high-quality silicon carbide optomechanical microresonators,” Sci. Reports 5, 17005 (2015)

    2015

  28. [36]

    Octave-spanning microcomb generation in 4H-silicon-carbide-on-insulator photonics platform,

    L. Cai, J. Li, R. Wang, and Q. Li, “Octave-spanning microcomb generation in 4H-silicon-carbide-on-insulator photonics platform,” Photonics Res.10, 870–876 (2022)

    2022

  29. [37]

    Multiple-Rayleigh-scatterer-induced mode splitting in a high-$Q$ whispering-gallery-mode microresonator,

    X. Yi, Y.-F. Xiao, Y.-C. Liu, B.-B. Li, Y.-L. Chen, Y. Li, and Q. Gong, “Multiple-Rayleigh-scatterer-induced mode splitting in a high-$Q$ whispering-gallery-mode microresonator,” Phys. Rev. A83, 023803 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    Azimuthal-ordervariationsofsurface-roughness-inducedmodesplitting and scattering loss in high-Q microdisk resonators,

    Q.Li, A.A.Eftekhar, Z.Xia, andA.Adibi, “Azimuthal-ordervariationsofsurface-roughness-inducedmodesplitting and scattering loss in high-Q microdisk resonators,” Opt. Lett.37, 1586–1588 (2012)

    2012

  31. [39]

    Very high-frequency silicon carbide microdisk resonators with multimode responses in water for particle sensing,

    H. Jia and P. X.-L. Feng, “Very high-frequency silicon carbide microdisk resonators with multimode responses in water for particle sensing,” J. Microelectromechanical Syst.28, 941–953 (2019)

    2019

  32. [40]

    A. N. Cleland,Foundations of nanomechanics: from solid-state theory to device applications(Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  33. [41]

    High-frequency silicon optomechanical oscillator with an ultralow threshold,

    W. C. Jiang, X. Lu, J. Zhang, and Q. Lin, “High-frequency silicon optomechanical oscillator with an ultralow threshold,” Opt. Express20, 15991–15996 (2012)

    2012

  34. [42]

    Nano-acoustic resonator with ultralong phonon lifetime,

    G. S. MacCabe, H. Ren, J. Luo, J. D. Cohen, H. Zhou, A. Sipahigil, M. Mirhosseini, and O. Painter, “Nano-acoustic resonator with ultralong phonon lifetime,” Science370, 840–843 (2020)

    2020

  35. [43]

    Ultrahigh-quality-factor micro- and nanomechanical resonators using dissipation dilution,

    N. J. Engelsen, A. Beccari, and T. J. Kippenberg, “Ultrahigh-quality-factor micro- and nanomechanical resonators using dissipation dilution,” Nat. Nanotechnol.19, 725–737 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Monocrystalline silicon carbide disk resonators on phononic crystals with ultra-low dissipation bulk acoustic wave modes,

    B. Hamelin, J. Yang, A. Daruwalla, H. Wen, and F. Ayazi, “Monocrystalline silicon carbide disk resonators on phononic crystals with ultra-low dissipation bulk acoustic wave modes,” Sci. Reports9 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    High-frequency GaAs optomechanical bullseye resonator,

    N. C Carvalho, R. Benevides, M. Ménard, G. S Wiederhecker, N. C Frateschi, and T. Mayer Alegre, “High-frequency GaAs optomechanical bullseye resonator,” APL photonics6 (2021)

    2021

  38. [46]

    Highfrequencyoptomechanicaldiskresonators in III–V ternary semiconductors,

    B.Guha,S.Mariani,A.Lemaitre,S.Combrié,G.Leo,andI.Favero,“Highfrequencyoptomechanicaldiskresonators in III–V ternary semiconductors,” Opt. Express25, 24639–24639 (2017)

    2017

  39. [47]

    Integrated high frequency aluminum nitride optomechanical resonators,

    C. Xiong, X. Sun, K. Y. Fong, and H. X. Tang, “Integrated high frequency aluminum nitride optomechanical resonators,” Appl. Phys. Lett.100(2012)

    2012

  40. [48]

    Spatial mapping of multimode brownian motions in high-frequency silicon carbide microdisk resonators,

    Z. Wang, J. Lee, and P. X.-L. Feng, “Spatial mapping of multimode brownian motions in high-frequency silicon carbide microdisk resonators,” Nat. Commun.5, 5158 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Moving boundary and photoelastic coupling in GaAs optomechanical resonators,

    K. C. Balram, M. Davanço, J. Y. Lim, J. D. Song, and K. Srinivasan, “Moving boundary and photoelastic coupling in GaAs optomechanical resonators,” Optica1, 414–420 (2014)

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.