Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Ultrastrong coupling of a nanotube to a double-quantum-dot two-level system makes the mechanical oscillator nonlinear at zero-point displacements, with up to 1.4% anharmonicity and a purely quadratic continuous readout.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 06:47 UTC pith:O7WUDQB2

load-bearing objection Impressive platform and a strong case for quadratic readout, but the zero-point-scale Kerr claim rests on an unverified decoherence premise and a partially circular calibration. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.21764 v1 pith:O7WUDQB2 submitted 2026-07-23 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

Tunable nonlinear electromechanics at the zero-point motion scale

Christoffer B. M{\o}ller , Roger Tormo-Queralt , Elsa V\'azquez-Rodr\'iguez , Victor Rom\'an-Rodr\'iguez , Marta Cagetti , Eneko Mateos-Madinabeitia , Janine C. Franz , Stefan Forstner
show 8 more authors
Sergio L. De Bonis Luca Ornago Maria El Abbassi Seoho Jung Andrew N. Cleland David A. Czaplewski Fabio Pistolesi Adrian Bachtold
This is my paper
classification quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall
keywords ultrastrong couplingnanomechanical oscillatorcarbon nanotubedouble quantum dotKerr nonlinearityzero-point motionquadratic optomechanical readoutdispersive regime
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper reports a carbon nanotube mechanical oscillator coupled in the dispersive ultrastrong regime to a double-quantum-dot electronic two-level system. The central claim is that this coupling makes the oscillator's spectrum anharmonic at the zero-point motion scale: a mechanical Kerr nonlinearity with anharmonicity up to α = 1.4%, about three orders of magnitude larger than earlier demonstrations, while the lowest states remain predominantly mechanical. A symmetry of the double quantum dot at zero detuning also makes the cavity readout purely quadratic in displacement, so the cavity frequency shift directly measures the oscillator's energy (phonon number) and provides an absolute displacement calibration in units of zero-point motion. Both effects are gate-tunable, reproduced in a second device, and captured without free fitting parameters by the system Hamiltonian. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a concrete route to strong nonlinear nanomechanics and, potentially, mechanical qubits and nonclassical mechanical states.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that in the far-detuned dispersive limit (ETLS frequency 2t_E/2π ≈ 7.4 GHz, mechanical frequency ω_M/2π ≈ 0.80 GHz, coupling g_EM/2π ≈ 0.46 GHz), the mechanical oscillator inherits a sizeable Kerr nonlinearity from the electronic two-level system. The quantum transition frequencies satisfy ω_{n+1,n} = ω_M + nK with K ≈ 12 g_EM^4/(2t_E)^3, giving an anharmonicity K/ω_10 up to 1.4% at the most strongly coupled charge transition. The same physics, at zero detuning, suppresses the linear optomechanical coupling and leaves Δω_C = 6 g_EC^2 g_EM^2/(2t_E)^3 (x_0/x_zpf)^2, a purely quadratic readout demonstrated over more than one order of magnitude in drive amplitude, wi

What carries the argument

The central object is the hybrid Hamiltonian H/ℏ = ω_M a†a + ω_C b†b + (2t_E) σ_z/2 + [ε + 2g_EM(a+a†) + 2g_EC(b+b†)] σ_x/2, with the mechanical displacement modulating the interdot detuning ε. Because the ETLS eigenenergy depends on the square of the effective detuning, at ε = 0 opposite displacements give the same energy shift: this is the symmetry that produces a quadratic mechanical frequency shift and a quadratic cavity shift, and it suppresses the linear couplings. The carrying identity is the effective Kerr coefficient K ≈ 12 g_EM^4/(2t_E)^3 and the quadratic readout coefficient 6 g_EC^2 g_EM^2/(2t_E)^3, obtained by a Born-Oppenheimer diagonalization—treating the slow mechanical and c

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative claims (α = 1.4% and displacements below zero-point motion) rely on treating the electronic two-level system as overdamped relative to its ~0.46 GHz coupling to the mechanics, so that its state stays thermal and factorizes from the mechanical motion; the paper bounds the electronic decoherence rate only from above (Γ ≪ 2t_E) and never measures it.

What would settle it

Measure the ETLS decoherence rate Γ directly (e.g., via cavity transmission or time-resolved response) across the range of 2t_E used. If Γ is found comparable to or smaller than g_EM ≈ 0.46 GHz, the adiabatic factorization ⟨(a+a†)σ_x⟩ ≈ ⟨a+a†⟩⟨σ_x⟩ fails and the inferred Kerr coefficient and zero-point-scale displacement calibration would need revision. Alternatively, a temperature-dependence test of the predicted Δω_C ∝ x_0² law at much lower mechanical occupation would check the readout model.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • If the central claim is correct, a nanotube mechanical mode can be made anharmonic at displacements at or below its zero-point motion, with anharmonicity of 1.4% tunable over three orders of magnitude by one gate voltage.
  • The quadratic cavity readout gives direct access to x_0² and hence to mechanical energy and phonon number, while a finite detuning continuously switches on a conventional linear readout.
  • The linear-in-Δω_C vs Δω_M relation observed over a broad amplitude range indicates that both the mechanical and cavity nonlinear shifts arise from the same ETLS-mediated mechanism.
  • Because the lowest eigenstates remain predominantly mechanical, this dispersive USC setup is a plausible starting point for a mechanical qubit with the readout required to observe phonon jumps.
  • Observation of the same effects in a second, independently fabricated device supports the generality of the platform.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next experiment is pulsed or low-power spectroscopy seeking resolved single-phonon transitions: the paper's own estimates suggest that with improved thermalization and higher mechanical frequencies K/δω_M could exceed 10, which would make such transitions visible.
  • The quadratic readout plus large Kerr term may allow two-phonon driving and stabilization of nonclassical mechanical states; the paper does not demonstrate these, but the required couplings are already present.
  • Because the claimed sub-zero-point displacement calibration inherits the semiclassical factorization assumption (decoherence rate Γ larger than g_EM), a direct measurement of Γ at different 2t_E would be a clean check; this is editorial extrapolation, not in the paper.
  • The gate-tunable crossover from quadratic to linear readout could be useful as a switchable energy-sensitive meter; that application is suggested by the data but not developed by the authors.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper reports a suspended carbon-nanotube double-quantum-dot device in the dispersive ultrastrong-coupling regime, with electromechanical coupling g_EM/2π = 0.46 GHz, ETLS frequency 2t_E/2π ≈ 7.4 GHz, and cavity readout at 1.359 GHz. The central claims are: (i) a mechanical Kerr/Duffing nonlinearity K = 2π × (2.4 ± 0.3) MHz appearing at driven displacements near or below the zero-point motion, with a mechanical anharmonicity tunable up to α = 1.4%; (ii) a purely quadratic cavity readout Δω_C ∝ x_0^2 over more than a decade; and (iii) quantitative agreement of the mechanical frequency renormalization, Kerr coefficient, optomechanical sidebands, and linewidth scaling with a single Hamiltonian without extra fitting parameters. Evidence includes quadratic scaling of the cavity shift, hysteresis of the driven mechanical response, softening vs 2t_E consistent with Eq. (4), sideband behavior vs detuning, and reproduction in a second device.

Significance. If the claims hold, this is a substantial advance: it would move mechanical Kerr nonlinearities to the zero-point-motion scale, with an anharmonicity three orders of magnitude larger than previous work, and provide a continuous energy-sensitive readout with a purely quadratic response. The paper is strengthened by multiple independent cross-checks, a detailed theory section with explicit derivations, numerical simulations that reproduce off-resonant response without free parameters, and reproducibility in a second device. The main risk is that the absolute displacement calibration and the inferred Kerr coefficient rest on a semiclassical factorization whose validity requires an unmeasured ETLS decoherence rate; this premise is not established in the present manuscript.

major comments (3)
  1. [SI 2C.i; SI 1D; main-text Eqs. (2)–(3)] The absolute calibration of x_0, and hence the central zero-point-motion claims, rests on the semiclassical factorization ⟨(a+a†)σ_x⟩ ≈ ⟨a+a†⟩⟨σ_x⟩ and on the replacement of ⟨σ_z⟩ by its thermal value. SI 2C.i states that this is justified when the ETLS decoherence rate Γ_t = Γ_φ + Γ(2n_B+1) exceeds the interaction g_EM ≈ 2π×0.46 GHz. However, SI 1D only reports the bound Γ ≪ ω_E ≈ 2π×7.4 GHz; Γ and Γ_φ are never measured, and the mechanical linewidth at zero detuning (up to 50 MHz, Table S1) is an order of magnitude below g_EM. Since Eq. (3) is the sole absolute converter from Δω_C to x_0/x_zpf, and Eq. (2) converts x_0 to K and α, the statements 'below the zero-point motion' and α = 1.4% are conditional on an unverified premise. Please provide a direct measurement of Γ_t (for example, from cavity/ETLS spectroscopy) or an independent displacement calibration that does not rely on the se
  2. [Fig. 4b; SI 1H; Eq. (3)] The comparison between measured and predicted K is only partially independent. The measured K is extracted by fitting Δω_M versus (x_0/x_zpf)^2, where x_0 is inferred from Δω_C via Eq. (3) using the fitted g_EM, 2t_E, g_EC, and the β ≈ 1.8 AM/CW calibration factor. The predicted K = 12 g_EM^4/(2t_E)^3 uses the same g_EM and 2t_E. Thus a systematic error in g_EM, 2t_E, or β propagates into both sides of the comparison. The observed 1.8σ discrepancy (2.4 ± 0.3 vs 1.3 ± 0.8 MHz) could be a calibration systematic. A displacement calibration based on the thermal noise floor or on an independent force calibration would turn Fig. 4b into a genuinely parameter-free test.
  3. [Main text p.5–6; SI 2H, Eq. (S96)] The headline anharmonicity α = 1.4% is a quantum spectral quantity, (ω_21−ω_10)/ω_10, but the measurement is a classical driven Duffing frequency shift. K is inferred through the semiclassical mapping Eq. (S96), not from resolved phonon transitions; indeed the paper states K/δω_M < 1. The value α is therefore a model-converted quantity, not a directly observed level spacing. Please state this limitation explicitly and, if possible, quantify the conversion error at the smallest 2t_E used for α = 1.4%, using the numerical diagonalization already presented in Fig. S20.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Abstract and main text p.5] The abstract highlights α = 1.4%, while the main-text operating point 2t_E/2π = 7.4 GHz gives α = 0.3%. Please state explicitly that 1.4% is the maximum over the 2t_E tuning range, not the value at the detailed data point.
  2. [SI 1I vs main-text Fig. 4c and SI 2I] SI 1I states that the linewidth dependence in the second device 'is consistent with the hypothesis that ETLS dephasing contributes largely to the mechanical linewidth.' This appears to conflict with the main-text conclusion, based on the g_EM^4 scaling, that thermal fluctuations are the dominant dephasing mechanism. Please reconcile these statements or clarify that the two devices operate in different regimes.
  3. [Fig. 3b and SI 1H] The claim that the smallest resolved displacements fall below the zero-point motion should be accompanied by an explicit noise floor or error bars on Δω_C. Currently no detection threshold is shown, making it difficult to assess how far below x_zpf the smallest point lies.
  4. [SI 2I.i, Eqs. (S117)–(S123)] The charge-locality model behind the g_n ∝ (4Nf + 1) scaling uses the explicitly stated 'rather strong approximations' and a chosen f ≈ 0.1. Since the main text says the gate-tunability data are captured without additional fitting parameters, this model assumption should be acknowledged when that claim is made.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Measured K is extracted via the same Eq. (3) calibration that embodies the predicted K, making the Fig. 4b comparison partially circular.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Main text, 'Nonlinearity in both mechanical dynamics and readout at the zero-point motion scale' (Eqs. 2-3, Figs. 3b/3c/4b); SI 1A and SI 1H]
    "At small amplitudes, the observed mechanical frequency shift scales quadratically with displacement, in agreement with Eq. 2. A fit to the data (dashed black line) yields a mechanical Kerr nonlinearity of K = 2π·(2.4±0.3) MHz ... This value agrees with the theoretical prediction K = 12g4EM/(2tE)3 = 2π·(1.3±0.8) MHz obtained from independently extracted cavity, electronic, and mechanical response parameters."

    SI 1H calibrates displacement from the cavity shift using the same model under test: for small amplitudes, q=(x0/xzpf)^2 = ΔωC/[6gEC^2gEM^2/(2tE)^3] (Eq. 3), and for AM/CW data the numerical integration uses the nonlinear equation of motion Eq. (S53) that already contains the theoretical Kerr term. Fitting ΔωM = (K_meas/4)q then yields K_meas = 24(ΔωM/ΔωC)gEC^2gEM^2/(2tE)^3. Since the predicted K_pred = 12gEM^4/(2tE)^3 and the model's own ratio is ΔωM/ΔωC = gEM^2/(2gEC^2), K_meas equals K_pred whenever the data satisfy that ratio; the Fig. 4b 'measurement vs prediction' comparison therefore reduces to a consistency check of ΔωM/ΔωC against gEC/gEM. The absolute g^4/(2tE)^3 law and the 'below zero-point motion' and α=1.4% numbers inherit the same fitted gEM, 2tE, gEC and the same semiclassi

full rationale

Most of the theoretical machinery (Born-Oppenheimer diagonalization, Eqs. 2-4, Kerr term, optomechanical couplings) is derived in the SI from the stated Hamiltonian; gEM is independently extracted from the frequency-suppression curve and 2tE/gEC from ETLS-only fits, and Ref. [28] is not load-bearing because the SI rederives the Kerr result. The problematic step is the K comparison: the 'measured' K is not obtained from an absolute displacement calibration independent of the model being tested. SI 1H calibrates (x0/xzpf)^2 from ΔωC via Eq. 3, and Eq. 2 is then used to convert ΔωM into K. Since Eq. 2 and Eq. 3 share gEM, 2tE and gEC, the fitted K_meas equals the predicted K_pred whenever the measured ratio ΔωM/ΔωC matches the model ratio gEM^2/(2gEC^2). The comparison therefore tests an internal consistency relation rather than independently confirming the g^4/(2tE)^3 law; the absolute zero-point-scale and α=1.4% statements inherit this calibration dependence. The check is not vacuous: the quadratic functional form, the measured slope, the hysteresis, and the second-device data are empirical, and the 2.4 vs 1.3 MHz values differ. Separately, SI 2C.i requires Γ_t > gEM for the semiclassical factorization while SI 1D only bounds Γ ≪ ωE; this is an unverified validity premise for the calibration, a correctness risk rather than a circularity, and is not counted in the score. Overall: partial, construction-based circularity in the central K comparison.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

8 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's quantitative predictions (Eqs. 2–4) rest on a standard capacitive-coupling Hamiltonian with parameters extracted by fitting (g_EM, 2t_E, g_EC, α_ε) plus several modeling assumptions: adiabatic elimination, semiclassical factorization with an unmeasured ETLS relaxation rate, thermal-equilibrium secondary modes, and a charge-locality model whose approximations the paper itself calls 'rather strong'. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced.

free parameters (8)
  • g_EM (ICT45) = 2π × 0.46 ± 0.05 GHz
    Extracted by fitting Eq. 4 (frequency softening vs 2t_E) to mechanical spectroscopy (main Fig. 4a); enters every prediction (K, Δω_M, Δω_C) and the displacement calibration.
  • g_EM (ICT01) = 2π × 0.18 ± 0.02 GHz
    Same extraction at the (1,0)↔(0,1) ICT; used for the linewidth-scaling dephasing test and the common-temperature fit.
  • 2t_E (operating point) = 2π × 7.4 GHz (tunable 2π×4–70 GHz)
    From global fits of the ETLS cavity response vs detuning and temperature (SI 1D); the functional form of K and the readout scale as (2t_E)⁻³.
  • g_EC = 2π × 49.8 ± 2.5 MHz
    From temperature-dependent cavity-shift fits with g_EC free (SI 1D, Fig. S8); enters the quadratic readout coefficient (Eq. 3) and the measured-K extraction.
  • α_ε (detuning lever arm) = 0.45 ± 0.05 eV/V
    Fit parameter converting applied gate voltage to detuning; cross-checked with DC bias triangles (0.48 ± 0.19 eV/V); needed for drive and displacement calibration.
  • mechanical temperature = 47 ± 5 mK
    Single free parameter fit to the thermal linewidth broadening across two ICTs (SI 1E, SI 2I); admitted in the text as 'not independently verified'.
  • γ (mechanical damping in simulation) = 2π × 15 MHz
    Assumed value used in the numerical spectra of Fig. S15; the measured linewidth varies 60 kHz–50 MHz, so the simulation value is representative.
  • β (AM/CW calibration factor) = ≈ 1.8
    Measured factor matching CW and AM nonlinear spectra (SI 1H); converts AM-demodulated displacement to CW displacement. Calibration constant, not a physical fit.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption Total Hamiltonian Eq. (1)/S7: mechanical mode + DQD ETLS ((2t_E)σ_z + εσ_x)/2 + cavity, with capacitive couplings g_EM(a+a†)σ_x and g_EC(b+b†)σ_x.
    The modeling basis for the whole paper; the electrostatic/capacitive coupling form is standard for nanotube electromechanics but is assumed throughout.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic Born-Oppenheimer elimination valid for 2t_E ≫ ω_M, ω_C, with the system staying on the ETLS ground branch.
    SI 2B: used to derive the Kerr coefficient (S17) and quadratic readout (S64); perturbative part validated against numerical diagonalization (Fig. S20), but the ground-branch assumption for driven states is assumed.
  • ad hoc to paper Semiclassical factorization ⟨(a+a†)σ_x⟩ ≈ ⟨a+a†⟩⟨σ_x⟩ and replacement of ⟨σ_z⟩ by its thermal value.
    SI 2C.i requires the ETLS relaxation/decoherence rate to exceed the interaction (~0.46 GHz); only Γ ≪ ω_E (~7.4 GHz) is stated (SI 1D), so the premise is unverified.
  • standard math Fourth-order perturbation theory in g_EM/2t_E for the Kerr coefficient and frequency renormalization.
    SI 2B Eqs. S11–S17; validated vs exact numerical diagonalization (Fig. S20) with ≤0.4% relative difference in the relevant regime.
  • domain assumption The mode studied is the second flexural mode (M2 P2), with DQD coupling maximized by symmetric dot placement.
    SI 1E: based on harmonic frequency spacing (ω_i ≃ i·ω₁), maximal softening at ε = 0, and red/blue sideband response; the polarization-angle estimate (12°) is a fit.
  • ad hoc to paper Charge-locality model giving g_n ∝ (4Nf + 1) scaling between ICTs (SI 2I Eqs. S117–S123).
    The paper itself calls these 'rather strong approximations'; the quartic-scaling prediction (g45/g01)⁴ = 43±27 for the linewidth test depends on them.
  • domain assumption Thermal equilibrium of secondary mechanical modes at a single common temperature (Boltzmann weights in Eq. S110).
    Used to attribute the linewidth broadening to thermal fluctuations (Eqs. S116/S126) and to infer the 47 mK mechanical temperature.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 40866 in / 34091 out tokens · 337284 ms · 2026-08-01T06:47:39.198130+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Nonlinearity at the scale of zero-point motion opens new possibilities for the control and readout of nanomechanical systems, but achieving this remains a formidable challenge. Here we demonstrate that ultrastrong coupling (USC) between a nanotube mechanical oscillator and a double-quantum-dot electronic two-level system enables a mechanical Kerr (Duffing) nonlinearity at the zero-point motion scale. In the dispersive regime, this large coupling yields a mechanical anharmonicity of $\alpha = 1.4\%$ - three orders of magnitude larger than in previous work - while preserving the predominantly mechanical nature of the lowest energy states. We further demonstrate a purely quadratic cavity-based continuous readout of the mechanical motion. This continuous nonlinear optomechanical readout is enforced by a double-quantum dot symmetry, which can be broken by gate tuning to introduce a large linear transduction. These results establish a tunable USC platform that enables strong mechanical anharmonicity and nonlinear continuous readout at the zero-point motion scale.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Current-based RF charge sensing in a carbon nanotube

    cond-mat.mes-hall 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0

    Current-mode RF readout of a suspended carbon-nanotube charge sensor at an RLC resonance yields 0.15 µe/√Hz sensitivity and SNR 17 single-shot DQD charge readout in 3.56 µs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Tormo-Queralt, R. et al. Novel nanotube multiquantum dot devices. Nano Letters 22, 8541–8549 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    von Horstig, F.-E. et al. Multimodule microwave assembly for fast readout and charge-noise charac- terization of silicon quantum dots. Phys. Rev. Appl. 21, 044016 (2024)

    2024

  3. [3]

    Zhang, J. et al. High-speed identification of suspended carbon nanotubes using raman spectroscopy and deep learning. Microsystems & Nanoengineering 8, 19 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    & Hierold, C

    Jung, S., Hauert, R., Haluska, M., Roman, C. & Hierold, C. Understanding and improving carbon nanotube-electrode contact in bottom-contacted nanotube gas sensors. Sensors and Actuators B: Chemical 331, 129406 (2021)

    2021

  5. [5]

    & Wegener, K

    Butzerin, A., Lanz, N., Weikert, S. & Wegener, K. Design and performance evaluation of a novel parallel kinematic micromanipulator. Precision Engineering 89, 328–337 (2024)

    2024

  6. [6]

    Waissman, J. et al. Realization of pristine and locally tunable one-dimensional electron systems in S51 carbon nanotubes. Nature Nanotechnology8, 569–574 (2013)

    2013

  7. [7]

    van der Wiel, W. et al. Electron transport through double quantum dots. Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 1–22 (2003)

    2003

  8. [8]

    Yu, C. X. et al. Strong coupling between a photon and a hole spin in silicon. Nature Nanotechnology 18, 741–746 (2023)

    2023

  9. [9]

    V., Sfigakis, F

    Penfold-Fitch, Z. V., Sfigakis, F. & Buitelaar, M. R. Microwave spectroscopy of a carbon nanotube charge qubit. Phys. Rev. Appl. 7, 054017 (2017)

    2017

  10. [10]

    Gonzalez-Zalba, M. F. et al. Gate-sensing coherent charge oscillations in a silicon field-effect transistor. Nano Letters 16, 1614–1619 (2016)

    2016

  11. [11]

    Yang, Y. et al. A mechanical qubit. Science 386, 783–788 (2024)

    2024

  12. [12]

    Arrangoiz-Arriola, P. et al. Resolving the energy levels of a nanomechanical oscillator. Nature 571, 537 (2019)

    2019

  13. [13]

    & Dykman, M

    Bachtold, A., Moser, J. & Dykman, M. Mesoscopic physics of nanomechanical systems. Reviews of Modern Physics 94, 045005 (2022)

    2022

  14. [14]

    Samanta, C. et al. Nonlinear nanomechanical resonators approaching the quantum ground state.Nature Physics 19, 1340–1344 (2023)

    2023

  15. [15]

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

    2014

  16. [16]

    Weis, S. et al. Optomechanically induced transparency. Science 330, 1520–1523 (2010)

    2010

  17. [17]

    & H¨ uttel, A

    Blien, S., Steger, P., H ´ıttner, N., Graaf, R. & H¨ uttel, A. K. Quantum capacitance mediated carbon nanotube optomechanics. Nature Communications 11, 1636 (2020)

    2020

  18. [18]

    & Nori, F

    Johansson, J., Nation, P. & Nori, F. Qutip 2: A python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Computer Physics Communications 184, 1234–1240 (2013)

    2013

  19. [19]

    Ranjan, V. et al. Clean carbon nanotubes coupled to superconducting impedance-matching circuits. Nature Communications 6 (2015). S52

    2015