Sail membranes for optomechanical accelerometry

Atkin D. Hyatt; Dalziel J. Wilson; Mahir Chowdhury; Mitul Dey Chowdhury; Mohamed J. Ahamed

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 60 references

Sail membranes for optomechanical accelerometry

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Sail-shaped silicon-nitride membranes reach 40 ng0/√Hz thermal noise in a monolithic cavity accelerometer.

desk verdict Nice new sail geometry and a real 40 ng/√Hz accelerometer, but the flagship 100× improvement claim is simulation-based and the measured Q is 5× off — worth careful review, not a desk reject. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.14089 v2 pith:5MI3UAZA submitted 2026-07-15 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hallphysics.app-phphysics.ins-detphysics.optics

Atkin D. Hyatt , Mitul Dey Chowdhury , Mahir Chowdhury , Mohamed J. Ahamed , Dalziel J. Wilson This is my paper

classification quant-phcond-mat.mes-hallphysics.app-phphysics.ins-detphysics.optics PACS 85.85.+j07.10.-h

keywords optomechanicsaccelerometrysiliconnitridemembranedissipationdilutionBayesianoptimizationtrampolineresonatorthermalnoisecavity

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 tries to show that a sail-like trampoline shape for a strained silicon-nitride membrane can deliver the acceleration sensitivity of a much larger square membrane while operating an order of magnitude lower in frequency. The authors use Bayesian optimization over the pad width and clamp fillet radius, guided by a dissipation-dilution formula, and predict a geometry whose thermal acceleration noise is about 10 ng0/√Hz. They fabricate centimeter-scale sails and measure Q×m ≈ 10 g with kHz frequencies, and integrate one sail with a nanoribbon to make a monolithic cavity optomechanical accelerometer with 40 ng0/√Hz thermal noise, enough to resolve micro-g vibrations. If correct, this opens the sub-100 ng0/√Hz regime for chip-scale accelerometers and suggests cryogenic arrays for dark-matter and gravitational-wave searches.

What carries the argument

The argument runs on the dissipation-dilution formula for a flexural mode, which writes the quality factor as the intrinsic material Q times a factor that grows with the ratio of strain energy to bending energy, plus the mode's effective mass. Bayesian optimization, using finite-element simulations of that formula, searches the pad width and fillet radii to maximize Qm/f. The winning shape is a circular-fillet sail: the large pad mass-loads the mode to lower f, while the clamp fillets concentrate strain and keep Q high.

What would settle it

Fabricate the identical sail geometry on a chip whose flexural modes are moved away from 7 kHz (by shaping, thickening, or clamping the chip) and measure the ringdown Q; if Q does not rise toward the simulated ~70 million, the dissipation-dilution prediction for the sail's two-orders-of-magnitude Qm/f gain is wrong, and the claimed ng-level acceleration noise would not be reached.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a trampoline geometry with a large central pad ('sail') and thin tethers preserves the dissipation-dilution quality factor of a square membrane while dropping the fundamental frequency by an order of magnitude, improving Qm/f by two orders of magnitude and hence cutting thermal acceleration noise. The optimized circular-fillet sail (2.5 mm pad, 10 µm tethers, 5×5 mm window) is simulated to reach f≈7 kHz, m≈1.3 µg, Q≈70 million, or about 10 ng0/√Hz. Fabricated devices show f=7.3–8.5 kHz, Q=(2.3–10)×10^6, and Q×m≈10 g; a sail-on-ribbon cavity optomechanical accelerometer built from a 7 kHz device achieves 40 ng0/√Hz thermal noise and ~10^-14 m/√Hz displacement

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the dissipation-dilution model with an intrinsic quality factor of Q0=60·h/nm predicts the performance of the fabricated sails; since measured Q is five times lower, the headline improvement rests on simulation rather than the as-built devices.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Sail membranes reach a room-temperature thermal acceleration sensitivity of ~10 ng0/√Hz in simulation, and ~20-40 ng0/√Hz in measured devices, below the 100 ng0/√Hz level previously typical for Si3N4 membranes.
A monolithic cavity optomechanical accelerometer built from a sail-on-ribbon device resolves micro-g ambient vibrations over a 4 kHz bandwidth with 10^-14 m/√Hz displacement imprecision.
The same Bayesian design strategy can lower the stiffness of photonic-crystal lightsail membranes and give access to nonlinear optomechanical effects in their flexural modes.
Cryogenic arrays of high-Qm/f sails are proposed as distributed quantum sensors and as detectors for ultralight dark matter and high-frequency gravitational waves.

Reading between the lines

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

Because the measured Qs are five times below the simulated values, the two-orders-of-magnitude Qm/f advantage over a square membrane is, for now, a simulation-based claim; a direct same-wafer comparison of sail and square devices would show how much of the predicted advantage survives fabrication.
The chip flexure mode at 12 kHz, overlapping the membrane band, is a plausible culprit for the Q shortfall; if so, a stiffer or shaped chip should recover a large fraction of the predicted Q without changing the sail geometry.
The optimization that converged in about twenty iterations suggests the method can be re-targeted at other figures of merit (e.g., force sensitivity, bandwidth, or mode purity) for other resonator families, not just acceleration noise.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Tom — quick take on Hyatt et al. The sail membranes are a genuine new geometry: mass-loaded central pad with filleted clamps, optimized by Bayesian search, and they do get kHz frequencies with Q~10^7 on 5 mm devices. The integrated sail-on-ribbon accelerometer shows 40 ng/√Hz thermal noise near resonance, which matches the prediction if you use the measured f and Q and the simulated mass. That is a real result and the near-resonance agreement is meaningful.

The paper is also honest about its soft spots — it explicitly says the measured Qs are 5× below the FEM prediction, and it reports an unexplained baseband noise floor about 10× above the shot-noise estimate. Credit where it's due: that candor is rare.

The question is the headline. The abstract and summary claim Qm/f two orders of magnitude better than a square membrane and ~10 ng/√Hz thermal noise. But the 10 ng/√Hz is simulated, not measured. The measured best device gives 22–27 ng/√Hz from ringdown (40 ng in the accelerometer). And the two-orders-of-magnitude improvement comes from the same simulation that overpredicts Q by 5×. The paper does not close the gap mechanically: gas damping is argued negligible, chip-mode hybridization is shown qualitatively but not quantitatively tied to the Q loss. If that unaccounted loss is substrate coupling, the geometric optimization may not transfer to arrays or larger scales. The measured devices may still be an order of magnitude better than a square membrane — that's a good result, but the headline as written is not demonstrated.

Minor quibbles: effective mass is simulated, not measured; no error bars on Q or f; the "4 kHz bandwidth" in the abstract is stronger than the 400 Hz near-resonance window where the device actually reaches the thermal noise floor.

Bottom line: solid experimental paper with a real new geometry; the accelerometer demonstration is worth having. The model–experiment gap needs addressing — measured mass, noise budget, and an honest benchmark against an actual square membrane on the same chip. I'd send it to review rather than desk reject; referees should push on those points, but the core result is likely real. I'd bring it to reading group if anyone cares about the boundary between simulation-backed design claims and demonstrated performance. I'd probably cite it for the sail geometry and the accelerometer noise value, with a cautious note.

Hope that helps.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript describes the use of Bayesian optimization to design Si3N4 'sail' trampoline membranes combining low frequency (5–10 kHz) with large Q×mass product. The authors fabricate centimeter-scale sails, measure Q in the range 2.3–10 million, and integrate one sail with a nanoribbon to form a monolithic cavity optomechanical accelerometer. They report a room-temperature thermal acceleration noise of 40 ng0/√Hz near the 7.3 kHz mechanical resonance, consistent with the prediction from measured f, measured Q, and simulated effective mass. The paper claims that the optimized geometry provides a Qm/f product exceeding that of a square membrane by two orders of magnitude, and suggests applications in accelerometry, dark-matter searches, and distributed sensing.

Significance. If fully substantiated, the result would be a notable advance in chip-scale optomechanical accelerometry: the measured thermal noise of 40 ng0/√Hz near 7 kHz with a microgram-scale, centimeter-sized device is competitive with the best membrane accelerometers, and the power-scaling of the displacement imprecision is consistent with a shot-noise-limited readout at ~50% efficiency. The authors also demonstrate a useful monolithically integrated sail-on-ribbon geometry. The main weakness is that the headline two-orders-of-magnitude Qm/f improvement over a square membrane is based on FE simulation, not on a direct experimental comparison, and the measured Q is about 5× below the simulated value. The thermal-noise result itself is not circular: it uses measured f and Q plus a simulated mass, with no fitted parameter. The analysis of the measured noise floor, ringdown, and optomechanical transduction is careful and reproducible in exposition.

major comments (3)

[§2, Fig. 2, Fig. 3] The central claim that the sail geometry gives Qm/f two orders of magnitude above a square membrane is not experimentally demonstrated. The predicted improvement uses the simulated Q≈70M (Fig. 2d–e), but the measured ringdown Qs are 2.3–10×10^6, a factor of 5–30 lower. With the highest measured Q=10M and the given m=1.3 μg and f≈7.3 kHz, Qm/f is about 1.8×10^-6 kg·s, which is roughly one order above a typical 5 mm square membrane, not two orders. No simultaneous measurement of a square membrane on the same setup is reported. This is load-bearing because the abstract and outlook explicitly state the two-orders-of-magnitude claim. Please either present a direct experimental comparison or substantially soften the claim.
[§3, Eq. (2a), Fig. 3(b)] The factor-of-5 discrepancy between simulated and measured Q is not quantitatively resolved. Gas damping is excluded only by an indirect pressure estimate, and chip-mode coupling is observed (12 kHz vibrometer response, Fig. 3b) but not connected to the measured damping rate. If the dominant loss is substrate-mode coupling, the geometric optimization that increases the simulated dissipation-dilution Q may not suppress the real loss channel, and the predicted scaling to larger sails or arrays is not supported. Provide quantitative evidence: vary chip thickness or clamping to alter the chip-mode frequency, or measure Q for a square membrane on the same chip and compare to the sail devices.
[§4, Fig. 4(d)–(e)] The baseband acceleration noise is more than an order of magnitude above the predicted shot-noise floor (≈1 μg0/√Hz) and is shown to exceed the ambient seismic/acoustic noise measured by a seismometer by ~10×. The paper attributes this to 'excess laser intensity noise' without a direct measurement or subtraction. Since the abstract claims the device is 'sufficient to resolve μg0/√Hz ambient vibration over a bandwidth of 4 kHz', the unmitigated baseband excess appears to contradict that application-level claim unless the 4 kHz bandwidth is strictly confined to the mechanical resonance band. Please clarify the intended sensing bandwidth and, if the baseband is important, address the excess noise.

minor comments (4)

[Abstract and Fig. 1] The phrase 'Q-mass product' appears with a hyphen; use 'Q–mass product' or 'Qm product' consistently. In Fig. 1, the axis label 'Q-m Product' has a nonstandard minus sign; replace with 'Q × m (kg)' or similar.
[Fig. 2] The panels (d) and (e) are described as 'Bayesian optimization algorithm convergence' and 'design objective landscape', but the color points are not defined in the caption; specify what the colors represent (e.g., iteration number or objective value).
[§3, Eq. (after Fig. 3)] The sentence introducing β is awkward: 'where here β=u_max ∫u dA/(∫u^2 dA)≈1.2'. Define β before using it in the thermal-noise expression, and check that the integral notation is clear (dA is the membrane area element).
[References [22], [36], [47]] Several references are self-citations to the same group's methods. This is not inherently a concern, but consider citing independent implementations of membrane accelerometry and dissipation-dilution modeling to strengthen context.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: predictions are computed from measured f,Q and simulated m,β; methodological self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is self-contained. Eq. (2a) is a standard dissipation-dilution model used as a design tool; the optimized geometry's Qm/f advantage is computed from the model and compared to literature data, and the fabricated devices are used to test it. The thermal acceleration sensitivity for the fabricated sails is computed from measured resonance frequency f, measured Q, simulated effective mass m=1.3 µg, and a published modal participation factor β≈1.2; no parameter is fitted to the 40 ng/√Hz result. The measured acceleration imprecision in Fig. 4 agrees with this independent prediction rather than being forced by it. The summary's ~10 ng/√Hz figure is a simulation prediction for the ideal Q≈70M design, while the measured devices give 22–43 ng/√Hz; the factor-of-5 Q gap is an acknowledged model-experiment discrepancy and a verification/correctness concern, not circularity. Self-citations to [22] (double-membrane accelerometer method) and [36] (Bayesian optimization workflow) are methodological; [22] is validated against a commercial seismometer in this paper, and neither citation is invoked as a uniqueness argument or an ansatz that contains the conclusion. The Bayesian optimization searches a model landscape; it does not fit the target noise value. Hence no step in the derivation reduces to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper relies on standard dissipation dilution and thermal noise formulas, plus a film-dependent Q0 from prior work. The main free inputs are the simulated effective mass and pre-stress value used to match FEM to experiment. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)

Pre-stress σ0 = 0.9 GPa
Simulations initially used 1 GPa, but measured resonance frequencies agree with FEM for σ0=0.9 GPa; this is a fitted material parameter.
Effective mass m = 1.3 µg
Simulated, not measured; used to compute thermal acceleration noise and Q×mass. If the actual modeshape differs, the quoted noise changes.
Modal participation factor β = 1.2
Simulated value used in the thermal noise formula; not independently measured.
Measurement efficiency η = 0.5
Fitted to power scaling of displacement imprecision; used to confirm shot-noise-limited operation but not central to the main claim.

assumptions (5)

standard math Dissipation dilution formula Eq. (2a)
Used to predict Q from geometry and stress; taken from prior literature [6,7].
standard math Thermal acceleration noise formula Eq. (1)
Standard fluctuation-dissipation result used to convert f, Q, m into acceleration noise.
domain assumption Intrinsic quality factor Q0 = 60·h/nm
Taken from [43]; assumed to apply to their Si3N4 film. Measured Q is 5× lower than predicted, so this assumption is not validated.
domain assumption Bayesian optimization converges to global optimum after ~20 iterations
No proof of global optimality is given; used to claim the discovered geometry is optimal.
ad hoc to paper Measured Q deficiency is due to gas damping or chip-mode coupling
Authors speculate two explanations but do not confirm either; this is load-bearing for the claim that the design advantage is preserved.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Sail membranes for optomechanical accelerometry." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5MI3UAZA

@misc{pith2026260714089,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Sail membranes for optomechanical accelerometry},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5MI3UAZA}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.14089}
}

abstract

Strained membrane resonators have emerged as a promising platform for optomechanical accelerometry; however, the desired combination of low frequency and high $Q$-mass product requires a rethinking of their dissipation dilution engineering. Applying Bayesian optimization to a Si$_3$N$_4$ membrane, we discover a class of sail-like trampoline resonators in which the frequency is decreased by an order of magnitude while preserving the $Q$-mass product. We demonstrate centimeter-scale sails with kHz frequencies, $Q\sim10^7$ and $Q\times\text{mass}\sim$ 10 g. Vertically integrating a 7 kHz device with a nanoribbon, we realize a monolithic cavity optomechanical accelerometer with a room temperature thermal noise of $40\;\text{n}g_0/\sqrt{\text{Hz}}$, sufficient to resolve $\mu g_0/\sqrt{\text{Hz}}$ ambient vibration over a bandwidth of 4 kHz with a displacement imprecision of $10^{-14}\;\text{m}/\sqrt{\text{Hz}}$. Cryogenic arrays of sail membranes may be attractive for new physics searches and distributed quantum sensing experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.14089 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** e), the Bayesian search converges to the global optimum after ∼ 20 iterations, predicting a (r,W) ≈ (15µm, 2.5mm) geometry with f ≈ 7kHz, m ≈ 1.3µg, and Q ≈ 70M, corresponding to a thermal acceleration noise S th a ≈ 10ng0/ √ Hz. To experimentally validate the optimized circular-fillet sail geometry, we fabricated devices using a standard photolithography and wet etch method described in [47], starting with a 100-… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Device characterization. (a) Energy ringdown of three sail [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Dual membrane accelerometry with an optimized circular-fillet sail membrane as a test mass and a ribbon membrane as a reference [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[1]

Applications of cavity optomechanics,

M. Metcalfe, “Applications of cavity optomechanics,” Applied Physics Reviews1(2014)

2014
[2]

Ul- tracoherent nanomechanical resonators via soft clamping and dissipation dilution,

Y . Tsaturyan, A. Barg, E. S. Polzik, and A. Schliesser, “Ul- tracoherent nanomechanical resonators via soft clamping and dissipation dilution,” Nat. Nanotechnol.12, 776 (2017)

2017
[3]

Pentagonal pho- tonic crystal mirrors: scalable lightsails with enhanced accel- eration via neural topology optimization,

L. Norder, S. Yin, M. H. de Jong, F. Stallone, H. Aydogmus, P. M. Sberna, M. A. Bessa, and R. A. Norte, “Pentagonal pho- tonic crystal mirrors: scalable lightsails with enhanced accel- eration via neural topology optimization,” Nature Communica- tions16, 2753 (2025)

2025
[4]

A high-resolution microchip optomechanical accelerometer,

A. G. Krause, M. Winger, T. D. Blasius, Q. Lin, and O. Painter, “A high-resolution microchip optomechanical accelerometer,” Nature Photonics6, 768–772 (2012)

2012
[5]

High- stress Si 3N4 reflective membranes monolithically integrated with cavity Bragg mirrors,

M. Khokhar, L. Norder, P. M. Sberna, and R. A. Norte, “High- stress Si 3N4 reflective membranes monolithically integrated with cavity Bragg mirrors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02490 (2026)

arXiv 2026
[6]

Ultrahigh- quality-factor micro-and nanomechanical resonators using dis- sipation dilution,

N. J. Engelsen, A. Beccari, and T. J. Kippenberg, “Ultrahigh- quality-factor micro-and nanomechanical resonators using dis- sipation dilution,” Nature Nanotechnology , 1–13 (2024)

2024
[7]

Generalized dissipation dilution in strained mechanical resonators,

S. A. Fedorov, N. J. Engelsen, A. H. Ghadimi, M. J. Bereyhi, R. Schilling, D. J. Wilson, and T. J. Kippenberg, “Generalized dissipation dilution in strained mechanical resonators,” Physical Review B99, 054107 (2019)

2019
[8]

Elastic strain engineering for ultralow mechanical dissipation,

A. H. Ghadimi, S. A. Fedorov, N. J. Engelsen, M. J. Bereyhi, R. Schilling, D. J. Wilson, and T. J. Kippenberg, “Elastic strain engineering for ultralow mechanical dissipation,” Science360, 764–768 (2018)

2018

Show all 60 references

[9]

Centimeter-scale nanomechanical resonators with low dissipation,

A. Cupertino, D. Shin, L. Guo, P. G. Steeneken, M. A. Bessa, and R. A. Norte, “Centimeter-scale nanomechanical resonators with low dissipation,” Nature Communications15, 4255 (2024)

2024
[10]

Ultra-coherent nanomechanical resonators based on inverse design,

D. Høj, F. Wang, W. Gao, U. B. Hoff, O. Sigmund, and U. L. Andersen, “Ultra-coherent nanomechanical resonators based on inverse design,” Nature Communications12, 5766 (2021)

2021
[11]

Spiderweb nanomechanical resonators via bayesian optimization: inspired by nature and guided by machine learning,

D. Shin, A. Cupertino, M. H. de Jong, P. G. Steeneken, M. A. Bessa, and R. A. Norte, “Spiderweb nanomechanical resonators via bayesian optimization: inspired by nature and guided by machine learning,” Advanced Materials34, 2106248 (2022)

2022
[12]

Mechanical quantum sensing in the search for dark matter,

D. Carney, G. Krnjaic, D. C. Moore, C. A. Regal, G. Afek, S. Bhave, B. Brubaker, T. Corbitt, J. Cripe, N. Crisosto, et al., “Mechanical quantum sensing in the search for dark matter,” Quantum Science & Technology6, 024002 (2021)

2021
[13]

Searching for vector dark matter with an optomechanical accelerometer,

J. Manley, M. D. Chowdhury, D. Grin, S. Singh, and D. J. Wil- son, “Searching for vector dark matter with an optomechanical accelerometer,” Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 061301 (2021)

2021
[14]

Grav- itational forces between nonclassical mechanical oscillators,

Y . Liu, J. Mummery, J. Zhou, and M. A. Sillanpää, “Grav- itational forces between nonclassical mechanical oscillators,” Physical Review Applied15, 034004 (2021)

2021
[15]

Cavity- optomechanical probe of gravity between massive mechanical oscillators,

Z. Tang, W. Li, H. Sun, X. Cai, T. Li, and Y . Liu, “Cavity- optomechanical probe of gravity between massive mechanical oscillators,” Physical Review A112, 053520 (2025)

2025
[16]

Optome- chanical platform for high-frequency gravitational wave and vector dark matter detection,

D. Rousso, M. B. K. Kunze, and C. Reinhardt, “Optome- chanical platform for high-frequency gravitational wave and vector dark matter detection,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.02576 (2026)

2026
[17]

Microfabrication of large-area circular high-stress silicon ni- tride membranes for optomechanical applications,

E. Serra, M. Bawaj, A. Borrielli, G. Di Giuseppe, S. Forte, N. Kralj, N. Malossi, L. Marconi, F. Marin, F. Marino, et al., “Microfabrication of large-area circular high-stress silicon ni- tride membranes for optomechanical applications,” AIP ad- vances6(2016)

2016
[18]

Electromagnetic coupling to centimeter-scale me- chanical membrane resonators via rf cylindrical cavities,

L. A. Martinez, A. R. Castelli, W. Delmas, J. E. Sharping, and R. Chiao, “Electromagnetic coupling to centimeter-scale me- chanical membrane resonators via rf cylindrical cavities,” New Journal of Physics18, 113015 (2016)

2016
[19]

Ultralow loss torsion micropen- dula for chipscale gravimetry,

C. Condos, J. Pratt, J. Manley, A. Agrawal, S. Schlamminger, C. Pluchar, and D. Wilson, “Ultralow loss torsion micropen- dula for chipscale gravimetry,” Physical Review Letters134, 253602 (2025)

2025
[20]

Precision optomechanical accelerometer via hybrid test-mass integration,

N. Bawden, B. J. Carey, P.-M. Yeo, N. Arora, L. Semen- tilli, V . M. Valenzuela, E. Romero, G. I. Harris, M. Wegener, and W. P. Bowen, “Precision optomechanical accelerometer via hybrid test-mass integration,” Physical Review Applied24, 064008 (2025)

2025
[21]

Strong actuation of mass-loaded membranes for gravity studies at the milligram scale,

J. Depellette, E. Rej, R. Cutting, and M. A. Sillanpää, “Strong actuation of mass-loaded membranes for gravity studies at the milligram scale,” Journal of Applied Physics139(2026)

2026
[22]

Membrane-based optomechanical accelerometry,

M. D. Chowdhury, A. R. Agrawal, and D. J. Wilson, “Membrane-based optomechanical accelerometry,” Physical Review Applied19, 024011 (2023)

2023
[23]

Ultralow-noise sin trampoline resonators for sensing and op- tomechanics,

C. Reinhardt, T. Müller, A. Bourassa, and J. C. Sankey, “Ultralow-noise sin trampoline resonators for sensing and op- tomechanics,” Physical Review X6, 021001 (2016)

2016
[24]

Mechanical res- onators for quantum optomechanics experiments at room tem- perature,

R. A. Norte, J. P. Moura, and S. Gröblacher, “Mechanical res- onators for quantum optomechanics experiments at room tem- perature,” Physical Review Letters116, 147202 (2016)

2016
[25]

Measurement of the mo- tional sidebands of a nanogram-scale oscillator in the quantum regime,

M. Underwood, D. Mason, D. Lee, H. Xu, L. Jiang, A. Shkarin, K. Børkje, S. Girvin, and J. Harris, “Measurement of the mo- tional sidebands of a nanogram-scale oscillator in the quantum regime,” Physical Review A92, 061801 (2015). 6

2015
[26]

Broadband optomechanical accelerome- ter reaching the thermomechanical limit based on suspended si 3 n 4 membrane resonator,

W. Li, W. Liu, C. Liu, Y . Gu, L. Liu, Y . Zhou, E. Xing, Y . Shi, J. Tang, and J. Liu, “Broadband optomechanical accelerome- ter reaching the thermomechanical limit based on suspended si 3 n 4 membrane resonator,” IEEE Sensors Journal24, 17528– 17536 (2024)

2024
[27]

High quality mechan- ical and optical properties of commercial silicon nitride mem- branes,

B. Zwickl, W. Shanks, A. Jayich, C. Yang, A. Bleszyn- ski Jayich, J. Thompson, and J. Harris, “High quality mechan- ical and optical properties of commercial silicon nitride mem- branes,” Applied Physics Letters92(2008)

2008
[28]

Dis- sipation in ultrahigh quality factor sin membrane resonators,

S. Chakram, Y . Patil, L. Chang, and M. Vengalattore, “Dis- sipation in ultrahigh quality factor sin membrane resonators,” Physical Review Letters112, 127201 (2014)

2014
[29]

Control of recoil losses in nanomechanical sin membrane resonators,

A. Borrielli, L. Marconi, F. Marin, F. Marino, B. Morana, G. Pandraud, A. Pontin, G. A. Prodi, P. M. Sarro, E. Serra, and M. Bonaldi, “Control of recoil losses in nanomechanical sin membrane resonators,” Physical Review B94, 121403(R) (2016)

2016
[30]

Analysis of membrane phononic crystals with wide band gaps and low-mass defects,

C. Reetz, R. Fischer, G. G. Assumpcao, D. P. McNally, P. S. Burns, J. C. Sankey, and C. A. Regal, “Analysis of membrane phononic crystals with wide band gaps and low-mass defects,” Physical Review Applied12, 044027 (2019)

2019
[31]

Measurement-based quantum control of mechanical motion,

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

2018
[32]

Ground state cooling of an ultracoherent electromechanical system,

Y . Seis, T. Capelle, E. Langman, S. Saarinen, E. Planz, and A. Schliesser, “Ground state cooling of an ultracoherent electromechanical system,” Nature Communications13, 1507 (2022)

2022
[33]

Hierarchical tensile structures with ultralow mechanical dissipation,

M. J. Bereyhi, A. Beccari, R. Groth, S. A. Fedorov, A. Arab- moheghi, T. J. Kippenberg, and N. J. Engelsen, “Hierarchical tensile structures with ultralow mechanical dissipation,” Nature Communications13, 3097 (2022)

2022
[34]

Perime- ter modes of nanomechanical resonators exhibit quality factors exceeding 10 9 at room temperature,

M. J. Bereyhi, A. Arabmoheghi, A. Beccari, S. A. Fedorov, G. Huang, T. J. Kippenberg, and N. J. Engelsen, “Perime- ter modes of nanomechanical resonators exhibit quality factors exceeding 10 9 at room temperature,” Physical Review X12, 021036 (2022)

2022
[35]

Nanoscale torsional dis- sipation dilution for quantum experiments and precision mea- surement,

J. R. Pratt, A. R. Agrawal, C. A. Condos, C. M. Pluchar, S. Schlamminger, and D. J. Wilson, “Nanoscale torsional dis- sipation dilution for quantum experiments and precision mea- surement,” Phys. Rev. X13, 011018 (2023)

2023
[36]

Ultrahigh-q torsional nanomechanics through bayesian optimization,

A. D. Hyatt, A. R. Agrawal, C. M. Pluchar, C. A. Condos, and D. J. Wilson, “Ultrahigh-q torsional nanomechanics through bayesian optimization,” Nano Letters (2025)

2025
[37]

Ultra- light dark matter detection with mechanical quantum sensors,

D. Carney, A. Hook, Z. Liu, J. M. Taylor, and Y . Zhao, “Ultra- light dark matter detection with mechanical quantum sensors,” New J. Phys.23, 023041 (2021)

2021
[38]

Optomechanical accelerometer search for ultralight dark matter,

M. Dey Chowdhury, J. Manley, C. Condos, A. Agrawal, and D. Wilson, “Optomechanical accelerometer search for ultralight dark matter,” Physical Review D113, L121303 (2026)

2026
[39]

Entanglement- enhanced optomechanical sensing,

Y . Xia, A. R. Agrawal, C. M. Pluchar, A. J. Brady, Z. Liu, Q. Zhuang, D. J. Wilson, and Z. Zhang, “Entanglement- enhanced optomechanical sensing,” Nature Photonics17, 470– 477 (2023)

2023
[40]

Quantum-enhanced optomechanical sensor network,

Q. Li, W. Li, Y . Wang, Y . Wang, L. Tian, S. Shi, and Y . Zheng, “Quantum-enhanced optomechanical sensor network,” Laser & Photonics Reviews20, e01636 (2026)

2026
[41]

Entanglement-enhanced optomechanical sen- sor array with application to dark matter searches,

A. J. Brady, X. Chen, Y . Xia, J. Manley, M. Dey Chowd- hury, K. Xiao, Z. Liu, R. Harnik, D. J. Wilson, Z. Zhang, and Q. Zhuang, “Entanglement-enhanced optomechanical sen- sor array with application to dark matter searches,” Commun. Phys.6, 237 (2023)

2023
[42]

Clamp-tapering increases the quality factor of stressed nanobeams,

M. J. Bereyhi, A. Beccari, S. A. Fedorov, A. H. Ghadimi, R. Schilling, D. J. Wilson, N. J. Engelsen, and T. J. Kippen- berg, “Clamp-tapering increases the quality factor of stressed nanobeams,” Nano letters19, 2329–2333 (2019)

2019
[43]

Evidence of surface loss as ubiquitous limiting damping mechanism in sin micro-and nanomechanical resonators,

L. G. Villanueva and S. Schmid, “Evidence of surface loss as ubiquitous limiting damping mechanism in sin micro-and nanomechanical resonators,” Physical Review Letters113, 227201 (2014)

2014
[44]

We opted to focus on devices with 10 and 15 micron tethers because of their predicted performance and robustness during fabrication

We optimized sail membranes over a range of tether widths and only saw significant changes in the frequency between each design—Q-m product remained roughly constant. We opted to focus on devices with 10 and 15 micron tethers because of their predicted performance and robustne...
[45]

Influ- ence of clamp-widening on the quality factor of nanomechani- cal silicon nitride resonators,

P. Sadeghi, M. Tanzer, S. L. Christensen, and S. Schmid, “Influ- ence of clamp-widening on the quality factor of nanomechani- cal silicon nitride resonators,” Journal of Applied Physics126 (2019)

2019
[46]

High-power laser drives motion in ultra-thin photonic crystal lightsails via radia- tion pressure,

L. Norder, A. Ke¸ skekler, and R. A. Norte, “High-power laser drives motion in ultra-thin photonic crystal lightsails via radia- tion pressure,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2606.20149 (2026)

2026 arXiv
[47]

Fabrication and characterization of high-q silicon nitride membrane resonators,

A. D. Hyatt, O. A. Flores, A. R. Agrawal, C. A. Condos, and D. J. Wilson, “Fabrication and characterization of high-q silicon nitride membrane resonators,” JoVE , e68706 (2025)

2025
[48]

Cavity optomechanics with stoichiometric sin films,

D. J. Wilson, C. A. Regal, S. B. Papp, and H. Kimble, “Cavity optomechanics with stoichiometric sin films,” Physical Review Letters103, 207204 (2009)

2009
[49]

Quantum- limited optical lever measurement of a torsion oscillator,

C. M. Pluchar, A. R. Agrawal, and D. J. Wilson, “Quantum- limited optical lever measurement of a torsion oscillator,” Op- tica12, 418–423 (2025)

2025
[50]

Accurate, precise pressure sensing with tethered op- tomechanics,

O. R. Green, Y . Bao, J. R. Lawall, J. J. Gorman, and D. S. Barker, “Accurate, precise pressure sensing with tethered op- tomechanics,” Physical Review Applied24, 024069 (2025)

2025
[51]

Self-calibrating gas pressure sensor with a 10-decade measurement range,

C. Reinhardt, H. Masalehdan, S. Croatto, A. Franke, M. B. Kunze, J. Schaffran, N. Sueltmann, A. Lindner, and R. Schn- abel, “Self-calibrating gas pressure sensor with a 10-decade measurement range,” ACS photonics11, 1438–1446 (2024)

2024
[52]

Mechanical dissipation by substrate–mode coupling in sin resonators,

M. H. de Jong, M. A. ten Wolde, A. Cupertino, S. Gröblacher, P. G. Steeneken, and R. A. Norte, “Mechanical dissipation by substrate–mode coupling in sin resonators,” Applied Physics Letters121(2022)

2022
[53]

3[b]), revealing a broad 12 kHz res- onance with a displacement profile consistent with simulation and qualitatively overlapping with the membrane mode

(brown data in Fig. 3[b]), revealing a broad 12 kHz res- onance with a displacement profile consistent with simulation and qualitatively overlapping with the membrane mode. Combined with a simulated effective massm=1.3µg, the measured damping rates of the circular-fillet devic...
[54]

Polytec VibroScan-QTec
[55]

The transmitted and refer- enced beams were combined on a balanced photodetector to cancel classical (technical) laser noise

The laser beam was split before passing through the cavity, cre- ating an auxiliary reference beam. The transmitted and refer- enced beams were combined on a balanced photodetector to cancel classical (technical) laser noise. This results in an extra factor of two in our expre...
[56]

Direct radiation pressure mea- surements for lightsail membranes,

L. Michaeli, R. Gao, M. D. Kelzenberg, C. U. Hail, A. Merkt, J. E. Sader, and H. A. Atwater, “Direct radiation pressure mea- surements for lightsail membranes,” Nature Photonics19, 369– 377 (2025)

2025
[57]

Optically actuated transitions in multi- modal, bistable micromechanical oscillators,

L. Michaeli, R. Gao, M. D. Kelzenberg, C. U. Hail, J. E. Sader, and H. A. Atwater, “Optically actuated transitions in multi- modal, bistable micromechanical oscillators,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2507.22605 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[58]

Broadband thermomechanically limited sens- ing with an optomechanical accelerometer,

F. Zhou, Y . Bao, R. Madugani, D. A. Long, J. J. Gorman, and T. W. LeBrun, “Broadband thermomechanically limited sens- ing with an optomechanical accelerometer,” Optica8, 350–356 (2021)

2021
[59]

Swept-frequency drumhead optomechanical resonators,

R. St-Gelais, S. Bernard, C. Reinhardt, and J. C. Sankey, “Swept-frequency drumhead optomechanical resonators,” ACS Photonics6, 525–530 (2019)

2019
[60]

Focusing membrane metamirrors for integrated cavity op- tomechanics,

A. Agrawal, J. Manley, D. Allepuz-Requena, and D. Wil- son, “Focusing membrane metamirrors for integrated cavity op- tomechanics,” Optica11, 1235–1241 (2024)

2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Applications of cavity optomechanics,

M. Metcalfe, “Applications of cavity optomechanics,” Applied Physics Reviews1(2014)

2014

[2] [2]

Ul- tracoherent nanomechanical resonators via soft clamping and dissipation dilution,

Y . Tsaturyan, A. Barg, E. S. Polzik, and A. Schliesser, “Ul- tracoherent nanomechanical resonators via soft clamping and dissipation dilution,” Nat. Nanotechnol.12, 776 (2017)

2017

[3] [3]

Pentagonal pho- tonic crystal mirrors: scalable lightsails with enhanced accel- eration via neural topology optimization,

L. Norder, S. Yin, M. H. de Jong, F. Stallone, H. Aydogmus, P. M. Sberna, M. A. Bessa, and R. A. Norte, “Pentagonal pho- tonic crystal mirrors: scalable lightsails with enhanced accel- eration via neural topology optimization,” Nature Communica- tions16, 2753 (2025)

2025

[4] [4]

A high-resolution microchip optomechanical accelerometer,

A. G. Krause, M. Winger, T. D. Blasius, Q. Lin, and O. Painter, “A high-resolution microchip optomechanical accelerometer,” Nature Photonics6, 768–772 (2012)

2012

[5] [5]

High- stress Si 3N4 reflective membranes monolithically integrated with cavity Bragg mirrors,

M. Khokhar, L. Norder, P. M. Sberna, and R. A. Norte, “High- stress Si 3N4 reflective membranes monolithically integrated with cavity Bragg mirrors,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2603.02490 (2026)

arXiv 2026

[6] [6]

Ultrahigh- quality-factor micro-and nanomechanical resonators using dis- sipation dilution,

N. J. Engelsen, A. Beccari, and T. J. Kippenberg, “Ultrahigh- quality-factor micro-and nanomechanical resonators using dis- sipation dilution,” Nature Nanotechnology , 1–13 (2024)

2024

[7] [7]

Generalized dissipation dilution in strained mechanical resonators,

S. A. Fedorov, N. J. Engelsen, A. H. Ghadimi, M. J. Bereyhi, R. Schilling, D. J. Wilson, and T. J. Kippenberg, “Generalized dissipation dilution in strained mechanical resonators,” Physical Review B99, 054107 (2019)

2019

[8] [8]

Elastic strain engineering for ultralow mechanical dissipation,

A. H. Ghadimi, S. A. Fedorov, N. J. Engelsen, M. J. Bereyhi, R. Schilling, D. J. Wilson, and T. J. Kippenberg, “Elastic strain engineering for ultralow mechanical dissipation,” Science360, 764–768 (2018)

2018