Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 49 references

Cavity optomechanics with a suspended resonant mirror

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A Fano cavity made with a suspended, resonant grating mirror produces optical spring shifts two orders of magnitude larger than the dispersive radiation-pressure model predicts, and the paper argues that a photothermal force is responsible.

desk verdict Solid theory and honest experiment, but the two-orders-of-magnitude spring enhancement is still unexplained; the photothermal story is plausible, not proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.02488 v1 pith:CJ7JOIW5 submitted 2026-08-03 physics.optics

Trishala Mitra , Gurprret Singh , S{o}ren Peder Madsen , Aurélien Dantan This is my paper
classification physics.optics
keywords cavityoptomechanicsFanosuspendedresonantmirroropticalspringphotothermalforcessubwavelengthgratingdispersivesiliconnitridemembrane
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

This paper investigates Fabry-Perot cavities in which one mirror is a suspended grating with a narrow internal optical resonance — a Fano cavity. The authors derive that, for the usual radiation-pressure (dispersive) coupling, the narrow linewidth of a Fano cavity is offset by a correspondingly smaller optomechanical coupling, so the maximum optical spring shift is exactly the same as for a broadband-mirror cavity with the same internal loss. Their measurements on a suspended silicon-nitride grating membrane confirm the predicted detuning and power dependence, but the spring shifts are two orders of magnitude larger than the dispersive model allows. The authors propose that photothermal forces — light absorbed in the membrane, heating it and pushing it after a delayed thermal relaxation — are responsible, and they present a phenomenological model with a relative-strength parameter that can reproduce the large enhancement.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the coupled-mode model of a Fano cavity, in which the cavity field a and the internal guided mode d of the resonant mirror are coupled by a rate G, producing a dressed cavity susceptibility. In the unresolved sideband regime, the optical spring shift is proportional to the imaginary part of this dressed susceptibility evaluated at the mechanical frequency, and near the Fano resonance it reduces to a Lorentzian with linewidth κ'_F = κ_F(1−νΔ_d) and an effective length L0 = c/γ. The equality of maximum shifts follows from an effective-length renormalization: as the cavity gets shorter, the linewidth and the optomechanical coupling both scale as 1/(L+L0), so the spring-shift ma

What would settle it

Measure the thermal relaxation time τ — for example, by time-resolved deflection after a pump pulse, or by the frequency dependence of the optical spring across mechanical modes. If the measured τ gives ξ close to 1 for all observed modes, or if the absorbed power is too low to produce the required β, the photothermal model would be ruled out for these observations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central result is a compensation identity: the maximum dispersive optical spring shift in a Fano cavity equals that of a broadband-mirror cavity with the same internal loss. In the coupled-mode model, the Fano cavity linewidth narrows because the effective cavity length grows to L+L0, where L0 = c/γ is set by the Fano mirror resonance halfwidth; the dispersive optomechanical coupling shrinks by the same factor, leaving their ratio (and the maximum attainable spring shift) unchanged. The experiments, however, find the opposite of a suppressed interaction: fitting the measured optical spring versus detuning and versus input power yields a coupling enhancement factor α ≈ 15–37, which for th

Load-bearing premise

The photothermal explanation rests on an unmeasured relative strength β that is a free parameter; without an independent measurement of the absorbed power or the thermal relaxation time, the model can absorb any observed enhancement, so the mechanism is not constrained by the data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the purely dispersive picture, a Fano cavity offers no advantage in maximum optical spring over a broadband cavity with equal loss; the linewidth narrowing and the coupling reduction cancel exactly.
  • The measured enhancement α ≈ 15–37 implies an effective optomechanical coupling tens of times larger than the linear dispersive value, so Fano cavities with suspended resonant mirrors can deliver much stronger optical springs than naive dispersive estimates suggest.
  • Because the photothermal model shares the dispersive lineshape's detuning and power scaling, matching the functional form of the measured shifts does not by itself distinguish radiation pressure from photothermal forces.
  • If the photothermal picture holds, the same delayed mechanism will affect mechanical damping and noise, so quantum-optomechanics applications with these membranes must account for the thermal response.
  • The observed strong interaction, whatever its origin, makes Fano cavities with suspended resonant mirrors promising for optomechanical control at short cavity lengths.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The free parameter β is not measured, so the photothermal explanation is flexible: a direct bound on absorbed power or a measurement of τ is needed to confirm that the giant spring is truly thermal rather than a sign of some missed dispersive or coupling effect.
  • A falsifiable test follows from the frequency dependence of ξ: the enhancement should roll off as ω_m τ approaches 1, so measuring the spring shift across mechanical modes with different frequencies could extract τ and test the model.
  • If photothermal forces dominate, they may set practical limits on ground-state cooling or quantum measurements with these gratings, because the delayed force adds noise and modifies the mechanical susceptibility in a frequency-dependent way.
  • Conversely, the large enhancement suggests a route to strong optomechanical actuation or sensing with modest input powers, provided the thermal dynamics can be engineered or controlled.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes dispersive cavity optomechanics in a Fabry-Perot cavity formed by a broadband mirror and a suspended resonant subwavelength grating mirror (a Fano cavity). Using a coupled-mode model, the authors derive the optical spring shift and show that, in the unresolved sideband regime, the maximum dispersive optical spring shift in a Fano cavity coincides with that of a broadband-mirror cavity with the same total internal loss (Eq. 40 vs Eq. 15). They corroborate this with finite-element simulations, including realistic finite-size Gaussian-beam and deformable-membrane models. Experimentally, they measure the optical spring shift of the (2,2) drum mode of a suspended SiN grating for four cavity lengths, as a function of detuning and power. The observed detuning and power dependences have the same dispersive form as the theoretical prediction, but the magnitude is more than two orders of magnitude larger. The authors propose that this enhancement arises from photothermal forces, modeled by adding a phenomenological force term with a relative magnitude parameter β and a thermal relaxation time τ.

Significance. If the dispersive-model result stands, the theoretical message is useful and non-obvious: Fano linewidth narrowing at short cavity lengths is accompanied by a reduction in the dispersive optomechanical coupling, so the maximum optical spring is unchanged for equal internal loss. The FEM simulations provide a concrete check of this scaling for realistic structures. The experimental observation of a large optical spring, with functional form matching the dispersive model but magnitude two orders above prediction, is a striking result that would be interesting to the optomechanics community. However, the paper's central interpretation of this anomaly via photothermal effects is currently supported only by a phenomenological model with unconstrained parameters; no independent measurement fixes β or τ. The manuscript is honest in calling this model 'plausible' and 'phenomenological', but the explanation is not yet testable from the presented data.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section V, Eqs. (52)–(56)] The photothermal explanation is not falsifiable as presented. The model introduces β and τ, but the experimental optical spring shift depends only on the combination ξ = 1 + β/(1 + ω_m²τ²), a constant multiplicative factor for a given mechanical mode and fixed τ. Since neither β nor τ is independently measured or bounded, any observed enhancement can be absorbed by choosing β (or τ). The fits with α in Eq. (50)/(51) are equivalent to fitting this enhancement, so the photothermal model does not provide a nontrivial test of the mechanism. The authors should either provide an independent measurement of β and τ (e.g., pump-probe photothermal response, thermal relaxation measurements, or a comparison of the predicted photothermal damping/antidamping with the observed mechanical linewidth changes) or explicitly reframe the conclusion as an unresolved discrepancy rather than a supported explana
  2. [Section IV C, Eq. (50) and Table II] The coupling enhancement α = G_exp/G is a free parameter in every fit, and the reported two-orders-of-magnitude enhancement is a fit outcome, not a model test. The agreement with the dispersive function only checks the detuning and power dependence, not the predicted magnitude. Moreover, in the detuning fits the cavity linewidth κ_F is also left free, further increasing the flexibility. The authors should present the data together with the theoretical prediction without scaling, or independently calibrate G_exp (for example from the measured displacement sensitivity, mode-shape overlap, or a direct measurement of the optomechanical coupling) so that α is not purely a fitting parameter. Without such a calibration, the central experimental claim of a large enhancement relies on the internal consistency of free-parameter fits.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eqs. (4), (18) and (53)] There is a dimensional inconsistency in the equations of motion: the Hamiltonian (1) and the photothermal force (52) contain ħ G a†a, while the right-hand sides of Eqs. (4), (18), and (53) use G a†a without ħ. If ħ = 1 is implied, this should be stated; otherwise the force terms should be written consistently as ħ G a†a.
  2. [Abstract and Eqs. (37)–(40)] The statement that the maximum optical spring shift in a Fano cavity equals that of a broadband-mirror cavity is obtained by neglecting the asymmetry factor ν in Eq. (37) and approximating κ'_F by κ_F. The abstract and conclusion state this equality without the caveat; please add a qualifier so that the approximation is clear.
  3. [Section III C, Eq. (49)] The FEM verification that 'there is no additional optomechanical coupling with the guided mode when the structure is deformed' is carried out for a single deformation profile, cos(πx/W), corresponding to the fundamental drum mode. The experiments use the (2,2) mode, which has a different spatial profile. Please clarify whether the conclusion is meant to hold for arbitrary out-of-plane mode shapes, and if so, support it with a broader set of deformation profiles or an analytical argument.
  4. [Typos and wording] Please fix typos: 'surmize' (Abstract), 'anf' (Sec. IV C), 'af half-width' (Sec. III A), 'Skematic' (Fig. 7 caption), 'for completness' (Sec. IV C). Also, in Fig. 7(c) the caption says 'detunings from resonance (black) were Δ_r = 70 pm (red) and Δ_b = -59 pm (blue)' but the black spectrum is presumably at resonance; please clarify.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Photothermal explanation reduces to the free α-fit; core dispersive derivation is independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section V, Eqs. (52)-(56); cf. Eq. (50) and Table II]
    "F_tot = F_disp + F_ph = ħGa†(t)a(t) + ħβG ∫ e−(t−t′)/τ/τ a†(t′)a(t′)dt′, where β represents the relative magnitude of the photothermal force with respect to the radiation pressure force ... δωm = 2κR|¯cin|2G2ξ|˜ϵa|2Im[˜ϵa], ξ=1+β/(1+ω_m²τ²). This clearly shows that a large value of β corresponds to a large effective optomechanical coupling and thereby may lead to a large optical spring."

    Equation (55) is the dispersive result Eq. (35) multiplied by the constant ξ. The experimental enhancement is already parameterized by the free fitted factor α² in Eq. (50). In the unresolved sideband regime, any fitted α is reproduced by choosing β=(α²−1)(1+ω_m²τ²); β and τ are not independently measured or bounded. Thus the photothermal model's 'explanation' of the two-orders-of-magnitude anomaly is an unobserved dial inserted into the same formula, so the conclusion that photothermal effects are responsible is equivalent to the fit, not a tested prediction.

full rationale

The analytical dispersive part is self-contained: Eq. (40) follows algebraically from the coupled-mode model and is corroborated by FEM simulations, so it is not circular. The experimental anomaly is honestly quantified by fitting α in Eq. (50). The circularity is confined to Section V: the photothermal force introduces β, an unmeasured and unconstrained parameter that simply multiplies the same dispersive optical-spring expression (Eq. 56). Because β can absorb any observed α, the claim that photothermal effects explain the large springs is an ex post facto restatement of the fitted anomaly rather than an independent verification. The paper explicitly labels the model as phenomenological and 'plausibly supports', which limits the severity, but the central interpretation of the main experimental discrepancy still reduces to a free parameter. Hence a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central theoretical result borrows the coupled-mode framework of Ref. [25] and assumes the guided-mode photons carry no net momentum; the photothermal explanation introduces unmeasured β and τ. The experimental fits use α as a free parameter per cavity length.

free parameters (5)
  • α = G_exp/G (per cavity length) = 24.1±4.9 (L=4µm), 15.5±3.3 (30µm), 21.5±5.8 (90µm), 29.8±7.3 (300µm) from detuning fits; similar from power fits
    Free parameter introduced in Eq. (50)-(51) to scale the theoretical coupling to match experimental optical spring magnitudes.
  • β (photothermal force magnitude relative to radiation pressure) = not measured
    Appears in Eq. (52)-(56); its value can be chosen to reproduce any enhancement, so the explanation is not falsifiable within this work.
  • τ (thermal relaxation time) = not measured
    Appears in Eq. (56); affects frequency dependence of photothermal response, not constrained by the measurements shown.
  • Cavity linewidth κ_F in optical spring fits = free parameter in fits, consistent with independently measured values
    The authors state κ_F was left free in Eq. (50) fits; consistency with cavity scans provides some check.
  • Imaginary part of grating refractive index in FEM = 4.8×10⁻⁴
    Added to make the Fano cavity total round-trip loss equal to the broadband cavity (8%) for fair comparison.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Coupled-mode model for Fano cavity (Eqs. 16-17) from Ref. [25] accurately describes the optical modes and their coupling to mechanics.
    The theoretical framework inherits the coupled-mode model of Cernotik, Dantan, Genes (Ref. [25]); no independent derivation is given here.
  • domain assumption The guided-mode photons of the Fano mirror do not contribute net longitudinal momentum exchange with the mirror (Section II C, Eq. 43).
    Key physical interpretation justifying equal optical spring in Fano and broadband cavities; if false, the predicted dispersive coupling changes.
  • standard math Standard dispersive optomechanical Hamiltonian H_disp = -ħ G a†a q (Eq. 1) applies.
    Standard textbook linear optomechanics; not in question.
  • domain assumption Unresolved sideband regime κ ≫ ω_m holds for all experiments.
    Used to simplify Eqs. 14, 35, 39. Cavity linewidths are several tens of pm (GHz) vs 420 kHz mechanical frequency, so valid.
  • ad hoc to paper Photothermal force model (Eq. 52) with exponential memory and parameters β and τ is an adequate description.
    The model is invoked post hoc to explain the observed enhancement; β and τ are not measured independently, making the explanation unconstrained.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Cavity optomechanics with a suspended resonant mirror." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/CJ7JOIW5

@misc{pith2026260802488,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Cavity optomechanics with a suspended resonant mirror},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/CJ7JOIW5}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.02488}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate optomechanical effects in cavities consisting of a plane-plane arrangement of a broadband reflectivity mirror and an ultrathin, suspended resonant mirror possessing a high-Q internal optical resonance. We first investigate dispersive optomechanics in such cavities on the basis of a generic analytical model as well as finite element method simulations of realistic structures. We then report on experimental optical spring measurements using a suspended silicon nitride membrane patterned with a subwavelength grating. While the observed optical spring variations qualitatively match those expected from the dispersive cavity optomechanics model, their magnitude is more than two orders of magnitude larger than predicted. We surmize that this strong optomechanical interaction is due to photothermal effects and put forward a phenomenological model that plausibly supports the observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.02488 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Schematics of broadband mirror (a) and Fano mirror (b) optomechanical cavities. In both cavities the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Cavity transmission spectra of a broadband mirror (a) and Fano mirror cavity (b) for different cavity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: (a) Plane wave model with horizontal periodic boundary conditions. (b) Simulated reflectivity spectra of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Simulated cavity linewidth (a) and displacement sensitivity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Gaussian beam/finite size mirror models for optomechanical cavities in which the Fano mirror is translated [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: (a) Top-view picture of the suspended Fano mirror. (b) Zoom-in picture of the patterned area. (c) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: (a) Skematic of the experimental setup. (b) Cavity linewidths (HWHM) as a function of cavity length. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Experimental variations of the optical spring frequency shift as a function of detuning for a fixed input [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: (a) Experimental variations of the optical spring shift with input power for the 4 cavity lengths and for red [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Variation of the optical spring of different mechanical modes for a 4 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

49 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Equations of motion We start by considering a linear Fabry-Perot cavity with two broadband mirrors, as depicted in Fig. 1(a). In absence of light, the cavity length isLand the right-hand mirror can oscillate around its equilibrium position with a frequencyω m. We assume that, when light with frequencyω L is injected into the cavity, its motion is coupled ...

  2. [2]

    Steady state and fluctuations We then proceed in a standard fashion by linearizing the fluctuations of the operators around their classical steady state mean values (e.g.a= ¯a+δa). Assuming that light is injected from the left-hand side only ( ¯bin = 0) and 3 neglecting the small, static radiation-pressure induced displacement, the mean intracavity field ...

  3. [3]

    Unresolved sideband regime In the unresolved sideband regime (κB ≫ω m) one retrieves the well-known expression for the mechanical resonance frequency (oroptical spring) shift δωm ≃ −G2|¯a|2 ∆ κ2 B + ∆2 =−2G 2|¯cin|2κR ∆ (κ2 B + ∆2)2 .(14) The amplitude of the optical spring varies linearly with the input power and dispersively with the detuning, and its m...

  4. [4]

    An illustration of the analytical predictions of Eqs

    Interestingly, the maximum optical spring amplitude, δω (max) m =G 2|¯cin|2 3 √ 3 8 κR κ3 B =η 2|¯cin|26 √ 3 TR (TR +T 0)3 ,(15) whereη= (2π/λ 0)q0 is the Lamb-Dicke parameter, is independent of the cavity length. An illustration of the analytical predictions of Eqs. (7) and (14) is given in Figs. 2(a) and (c), which show the broadband mirror cavity trans...

  5. [5]

    1(b), we make use of the coupled-mode model of Ref

    Equations of motion To investigate dispersive optomechanics in a Fano cavity consisting of a broadband mirror and a resonant mirror, as depicted in Fig. 1(b), we make use of the coupled-mode model of Ref. [25] and introduce a Fano mirror mode d, whose coupling with theamode and the input/output modes describes the interference leading to the internal opti...

  6. [6]

    In Fourier space, one has now δa(ω) = ˜ϵa(ω)iG¯aδq(ω) +...,(32) which, combined with Eq

    Steady state and fluctuations Assuming as previously that the cavity is driven through the broadband mirror with a mean photon flux|¯c in|2 = Pin/¯hω0, and neglecting the backaction of the mechanics on theaanddmodes, the steady state amplitudes of both modes are ¯d=− G γ+i∆ d ¯a=−Gϵ d(0)¯a,(24) ¯a= √2κR ϵa(0)−1 − G2ϵd(0) ¯cin = √ 2κR˜ϵa(0)¯cin,(25) where ...

  7. [7]

    Unresolved sideband regime In the unresolved sideband regime, when the mechanical frequencyωm is much smaller than the cavity linewidth, the previous expressions substantially simplify by evaluating the susceptibilities at zero frequencies, yieldin ag mechanical resonance frequency shift given by δωm = 2κR|¯cin|2G2|˜ϵa|2Im[˜ϵa].(35) 6 In the vicinity of t...

  8. [8]

    Kippenberg, and Florian Marquardt, ”Cavity optomechanics,” Rev

    Markus Aspelmeyer, Tobias J. Kippenberg, and Florian Marquardt, ”Cavity optomechanics,” Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

Show all 49 references
  1. [9]

    J. D. Thompson, B. M. Zwickl, A. M. Jayich, F. Marquardt, S. M. Girvin, and J. G. E. Harris, ”Strong dispersive coupling of a high finesse cavity to a micromechanical membrane,” Nature452, 72 (2008)

    2008

  2. [10]

    D. J. Wilson, C. A. Regal, S. A. Papp, and H. J. Kimble, ”Cavity optomechanics with stoichiometric SiN films,” Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 207204 (2009)

    2009

  3. [11]

    T. P. Purdy, R. W. Peterson, and C. A. Regal, ”Observation of radiation pressure shot noise on a macroscopic object,” Science339, 801-804 (2013)

    2013

  4. [12]

    T. P. Purdy, P.-L. Yu, R. W. Peterson, N. S. Kampel, and C. A. Regal, ”Strong optomechanical squeezing of light,” Phys. Rev. X3031012 (2013)

    2013

  5. [13]

    Biancofiore, M

    M- Karuza, C. Biancofiore, M. Bawaj, C. Molinelli, M. Galassi, R. Natali, P. Tombesi, G. Di Giuseppe, and D. Vitali, ”Optomechanically induced transparency in a membrane-in-the-middle setup at room temperature,” Phys. Rev. A88, 013804 (2013)

    2013

  6. [14]

    H. Xu, D. Mason, L. Jiang, and J. G. E. Harris, ”Topological energy transfer in an optomechanical system with exceptional points,” Nature537, 80-83 (2016)

    2016

  7. [15]

    S. A. Saarinen, N. Krajl, E. Langman, Y. Tsaturyan, and A. Schliesser, ”Laser cooling a membrane-in-the-middle system close to the quantum ground state from room temperature,” Optica10, 364-372 (2023)

    2023

  8. [16]

    Rossi, D

    M. Rossi, D. Mason, J. Chen, Y. Tsaturyan, and A. Schliesser, ”Measurement-based quantum control of mechanical motion,” Nature563, 53-58 (2018). 16

    2018

  9. [17]

    C. Yang, X. Wei, J. Sheng, and H. Wu, ”Phonon heat transport in cavity-mediated nanomechanical resonators,” Nat. Comm.11, 4626 (2020)

    2020

  10. [18]

    X. Yao, M. H. J. de Jong, J. Lie, and S. Gr¨ oblacher, ”Long-Range Optomechanical Interactions in SiN Membrane Arrays,” Phys. Rev. X15, 011014 (2025)

    2025

  11. [19]

    Kemiktarak, M

    U. Kemiktarak, M. Metcalfe, M. Durand, and J. Lawall, ”Mechanically compliant grating reflectors for optomechanics,” Appl. Phys. Lett.100, 061124 (2012)

    2012

  12. [20]

    C. H. Bui, J. Zheng, S. W. Hoch, L. Y. T. Lee, J. G. E. Harris, and C. W. Wong, ”High-reflectivity, high-Q micromechanical membranes via guided resonances for enhanced optomechanical coupling,” Appl. Phys. Lett.100, 021110 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    Kemiktarak, M

    U. Kemiktarak, M. Durand, M. Metcalfe, and J. Lawall, ”Cavity optomechanics with sub-wavelength grating mirrors,” New J. Phys.14, 125010 (2012)

    2012

  14. [22]

    R. A. Norte, J. P. Moura, and S. Gr¨ oblacher, ”Mechanical Resonators for Quantum Optomechanics Experiments at Room Temperature,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 147202 (2016)

    2016

  15. [23]

    Reinhardt, T

    C. Reinhardt, T. M¨ uller, A. Bourassa, and J. C. Sankey, ”Ultralow-Noise SiN Trampoline Resonators for Sensing and Optomechanics,” Phys. Rev. X6, 021001 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    X. Chen, C. Chardin, K. Makles, C. Ca¨ er, S. Chua, R. Braive, I. Robert-Philip, T. Briant, P.-F. Cohadon, A. Heidmann, T. Jacqmin, and S. Deleglise, ”High-finesse Fabry-Perot cavities with bidimensional Si3N4 photonic-crystal slabs,” Light Sci. Appl.6, e16190 (2017)

    2017

  17. [25]

    B. Nair, A. Naesby, B. R. Jeppesen, and A. Dantan, ”Suspended silicon nitride thin films with enhanced and electrically tunable reflectivity,” Phys. Scr.14, 125013 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Y. Sang, J. Xu, K. Liu, W. Chen, Y. Xiao, Z. Zhu, N. Liu, and J. Zhang, ”Spatial Nonreciprocal Transmission and Optical Bistability Based on Millimiter-scale Suspended Metasurface,” Adv. Opt. Mat. 2201523 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    J. Xu, K. Liu, Y. Sang, Z. Tan, C. Guo, and Z. Zhu, ”Millimiter-scale ultrathin suspended metasurface integrated high- finesse optomechanical cavity,” Opt. Lett.47/, 5481-5484 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    F. Zhou, Y. Bao, J. J. Gorman, and J. R. Lawall, ”Cavity Optomechanical Bistability with an Ultrahigh Reflectivity Photonic Crystal Membrane,” Laser Photonics Rev. 2300008 (2023)

    2023

  21. [29]

    Enzian, Z

    G. Enzian, Z. Wang, A. Simonsen, J. Mathiassen, T. Vibel, Y. Tsaturyan, A. Tagantsev, A. Schliesser, and E. S. Polzik, ”Phononically shielded photonic-crystal mirror membranes for cavity quantum optomechanics,” Optics Express31, 13040- 13052 (2023)

    2023

  22. [30]

    Khokhar, L

    M. Khokhar, L. Norder, P. M. Sberna, R. A. Norte, ”High-Stress Si3N4 Reflective Membranes Monolithically Integrated with Cavity Bragg Mirrors,” arxiv:2306.02490 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Naesby and A

    A. Naesby and A. Dantan, ”Microcavities with suspended subwavelength structured mirrors,” Opt. Express26, 29886- 29894 (2018)

    2018

  24. [32]

    Cernotik, A

    A. Cernotik, A. Dantan, and C. Genes, ”Cavity quantum electrodynamics with frequency-dependent reflectors,” Phys. Rev. Lett.122, 243601 (2019)

    2019

  25. [33]

    Mitra, G

    T. Mitra, G. Singh, A. A. Darki, S. P. Madsen, and A. Dantan, ”Narrow-linewidth Fano microcavities with resonant subwavelength grating mirror,” Opt. Express32, 15667-15679 (2024)

    2024

  26. [34]

    Kirkegaard, T

    M. Kirkegaard, T. Mitra, G. Singh, and A. Dantan, ”Optical microcavity with a pair of suspended resonant mirrors,” Opt. Continuum4, 2632-2645 (2025)

    2025

  27. [35]

    J. M. Fitzgerald, S. K. Manjeshwar, W. Wieczorek, and P. Tassin, ”Cavity optomechanics with photonic bound states in the continuum,” Phys. Rev. Res.3, 013131 (2021)

    2021

  28. [36]

    P´ eralle, S

    C. P´ eralle, S. K. Manjeshwar, A. Ciers, W. Wieczorek, and P. Tassin, ”Quasibound states in the continuum in photonic crystal based optomechanical microcavities,” Phys. Rev. B109, 035407 (2024)

    2024

  29. [37]

    L. Du, J. Monsel, W. Wieczorek, and J. Splettstoesser, ”Nonlinear quantum optomechanics in a Fano-mirror microcavity system,” arxiv:2602.20085 (2026)

    2026 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. K. Manjeshwar, A. Ciers, J. Monsel, H. Pfeifer, C. Peralle, S. M. Wang, P. Tassin, and W. Wieczorek, ”Integrated microcavity optomechanics with a suspended photonic crystal mirror above a distributed Bragg reflector,” Opt. Express 31, 30212-30226 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Woolf, P.-C

    D. Woolf, P.-C. Hui, E. Iwase, M. Khan, A. W. Rodriguez, P. Deotare, I. Bulu, S. G. Johnson, F. Capasso, and M. Loncar, ”Optomechanical and photothermal interactions in suspended photonic crystal membranes,” Opt. Express21, 7258-7275 (2013)

    2013

  32. [40]

    S. Fan, W. Suh, and J. D. Joannopoulos, ”Temporal coupled-mode theory for the Fano resonance in optical resonators,” J. Opt. Soc. Am. A20, 569-572 (2003)

    2003

  33. [41]

    Toft-Vandborg, A

    C. Toft-Vandborg, A. Parthenopoulos, A. A. Darki, and A. Dantan, ”Collimation and finite-size effects in suspended resonant guided-mode gratings”, J. Opt. Soc. Am. A38, 1714-1725 (2021)

    2021

  34. [42]

    Singh, T

    G. Singh, T. Mitra, S. P. Madsen, and A. Dantan, ”Highly reflective and high-Q thin resonant subwavelength gratings,” J. Phys. Photonics6, 045009 (2024)

    2024

  35. [43]

    Garmire, ”Theory of quarter-wave-stack dielectric mirrors used in a thin Fabry–Perot filter,” Applied Optics42, 5442–5449 (2003)

    E. Garmire, ”Theory of quarter-wave-stack dielectric mirrors used in a thin Fabry–Perot filter,” Applied Optics42, 5442–5449 (2003)

    2003

  36. [44]

    Pinard, Y

    M. Pinard, Y. Hadjar, and A. Heidmann, ”Effective mass in quantum effects of radiation pressure,” Eur. Phys. J. D7, 107-116 (1999)

    1999

  37. [45]

    A. A. Darki, R. V. Nielsen, J. V. Nygaard, and A. Dantan, ”Mechanical investigations of free-standing SiN membranes patterned with one-dimensional photonic crystal structures”, J. Appl. Phys.131, 195901 (2022)

    2022

  38. [46]

    Cavity cooling of a microlever,

    C. H. Metzger and K. Karrai, “Cavity cooling of a microlever,” Nature432, 1002–1005 (2004). 17

    2004

  39. [47]

    Pinard and A

    M. Pinard and A. Dantan, ”Quantum limits of photothermal and radiation pressure cooling of a movable mirror,” New J. Phys.10, 095012 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Restrepo, J

    J. Restrepo, J. Gabelli, C. Ciuti, and I. Favero, ”Classical and quantum theory of photothermal cavity cooling of a mechanical oscillator,” Comptes Rendus Physique12, 860-870 (2011)

    2011

  41. [49]

    Shakespeare, A

    C. Shakespeare, A. S. Kumar, and J. T. Muhonen, ”Thermal relaxation time and photothermal optomechanical force in sliced photonic crystal silicon nanobeams,” Opt. Express32, 36824-36834 (2024)

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.