Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 minor 52 references

Bulk lithium niobate crystals host accessible ~100 GHz mechanical modes that couple strongly to microwave cavities at 4 K.

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 ↗

Non-contact 3D-cavity piezo-electromechanics drives milligram bulk-LN thickness-shear modes from 7–110 GHz with Q up to ~30,000 and cooperativity up to 16.6 at 4 K.

T0 review reviewed 2026-07-14 challenge →

load-bearing objection Solid experimental platform paper: bulk LN + non-contact 3D cavities really does give ~100 GHz milligram-mass modes with Q~3e4 and multi-mode strong coupling (C~16) at 4 K.

arxiv 2607.10737 v1 pith:765IJJLK submitted 2026-07-12 physics.app-ph quant-ph

Accessing 100 GHz Mechanical Modes in Bulk Crystals at Cryogenic Temperatures

Boxuan Tian , Jiacheng Xie , Hong X. Tang This is my paper
classification physics.app-ph quant-ph
keywords bulk lithium niobatecavity piezo-electromechanicsthickness-shear modesstrong couplingsub-terahertz mechanicscooperativitysuperconducting cavitymilligram resonators
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 reading

High-frequency mechanical resonators near 100 GHz have energy quanta large enough that thermal occupation is already low at a few kelvin, so macroscopic mechanical systems can approach the quantum ground state without dilution refrigerators or active cooling. Prior work relied on microfabricated thin-film devices whose quality factors suffered from surface defects and electrode contact. This paper shows that centimeter-scale, milligram-mass bulk lithium niobate crystals support thickness-shear modes from 7 GHz to 110 GHz when they are placed inside simple three-dimensional microwave cavities that concentrate the electric field without physical contact. At 4 K with a tunable superconducting niobium cavity the system reaches the strong-coupling regime, with cooperativities of 12–17 at 85 GHz and 110 GHz, so microwave photons and mechanical phonons exchange energy coherently. The platform therefore opens a practical route to massive, high-frequency mechanical quantum systems at elevated temperatures.

Core claim

Bulk lithium niobate thickness-shear modes spanning 7–110 GHz can be efficiently excited in a non-contact geometry by three-dimensional microwave cavities; when those cavities are made of frequency-tunable superconducting niobium and cooled to ~4 K, the photon–phonon system enters the strong-coupling regime with cooperativities up to 16.6 at 110 GHz, enabling coherent energy exchange between microwave photons and milligram-scale mechanical phonons.

What carries the argument

Plug-and-play 3D cavity piezo-electromechanics: a dual-aperture metallic cavity confines the microwave electric field to a sub-mm^{3} volume inside a bulk z-cut LN disk, so the field couples to high-order odd thickness-shear modes via the piezoelectric coefficient e15 without electrode contact, while a PTFE dielectric wire tunes the cavity frequency across multiple mechanical resonances.

Load-bearing premise

The evenly spaced absorption dips are genuine bulk thickness-shear modes whose free spectral range is fixed only by crystal thickness and shear velocity, so that the multi-mode reflection fit correctly extracts photon–phonon coupling rates rather than cavity artifacts.

What would settle it

Measure the free spectral range of the same crystal while deliberately changing its thickness by a known amount (or rotate it to swap polarization axes) and check whether the spacing scales exactly as predicted by fn = n v / 2L and whether the avoided-crossing gaps remain consistent with the claimed electromechanical g.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

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

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a non-contact 3D microwave-cavity piezo-electromechanical platform that couples high-order thickness-shear modes of bulk lithium niobate disks to cavity photons. Across X- to W-band, evenly spaced mechanical resonances are observed with free spectral ranges matching crystal thickness and shear velocity; mechanical quality factors reach ~30 000 near 76 GHz. With frequency-tunable superconducting niobium cavities at ~4 K the system enters the strong-coupling regime: multi-mode S11 fits yield average cooperativities C = 12.28 ± 0.14 at 85 GHz and C = 16.60 ± 0.27 at 110 GHz, with 2g exceeding both loaded cavity and mechanical linewidths. Polarization-rotation, contact-loss estimates, and Fourier-reconstructed ringdowns supply additional consistency checks.

Significance. If the spectroscopic identification and strong-coupling claims hold, the work supplies a practical route to milligram-scale mechanical resonators near 100 GHz that can be thermalized near the ground state with only a 4 K cryocooler. The plug-and-play dual-aperture cavity geometry eliminates electrode loading, yields nearly two orders of magnitude higher Q than prior thin-film sub-THz piezo devices, and demonstrates coherent photon–phonon exchange at W-band. These results open a concrete experimental path for macroscopic quantum tests, hybrid mm-wave systems, and precision metrology at elevated temperatures without dilution refrigeration.

minor comments (5)
  1. Introduction and Discussion: the thermal-occupancy claim (n_th ≈ 0.38 at 110 GHz, 4.1 K) is correct under the Bose–Einstein formula, yet a short explicit statement that quantum-limited amplification is still required for a noise-calibrated ground-state verification would prevent over-reading.
  2. Fig. 5 caption and main text: the literature comparison of Q factors is useful; adding the corresponding fQ products (or a second panel) would make the two-order improvement claim more quantitative for readers.
  3. SM Section I: the theoretical g estimate assumes η = 1 and room-temperature material constants; a one-sentence note that cryogenic e15 and ε_LN uncertainties contribute to the 15–20 % discrepancy would tighten the comparison.
  4. Main text Eq. (3) and mode-order labels: the stated ±4 mode-order uncertainty arising from FSR estimation should also appear in the figure captions of Figs. 2 and 3 for self-contained readability.
  5. Typographical consistency: “sub-terahertz” / “sub-THz” and “W band” / “W-band” alternate; standardizing would improve polish.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: spectroscopic S11 data are fitted to a standard multi-mode cavity–phonon input–output model; cooperativity and strong-coupling claims follow from independently extracted rates, not by construction.

full rationale

The paper’s central results are experimental reflection spectra of bulk-LN thickness-shear modes coupled to 3D microwave cavities, fitted to the ordinary one-port cavity–phonon formula (main-text Eq. 2 / SM Eq. 6). Coupling rates g, cavity and mechanical linewidths are free parameters of that fit; cooperativity C = 4g²/(Γa,load Γb) is then computed from those values and is not forced by normalization or definition. Mode identification rests on measured free-spectral ranges that match independently known crystal thicknesses and shear velocity (Eq. 3), on the odd-order selection rule, on 90° polarization rotation that swaps H/V families, and on dielectric tuning that produces avoided crossings—none of which are circular. Theoretical g estimates (SM I) and Fourier-reconstructed ring-downs (SM VI) serve as consistency checks, not as inputs that redefine the measured quantities. Self-citations supply the prior cavity-phonon Hamiltonian and effective-mass conventions; they are not load-bearing uniqueness theorems or ansatzes that close the argument. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained against external spectroscopic benchmarks and contains no self-definitional, fitted-as-prediction, or uniqueness-imported steps.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 4 axioms · 2 invented entities

The work is experimental cavity piezo-electromechanics. Load-bearing content is measured S11 and standard linear input–output theory; free parameters are spectroscopic fit values. Background axioms are textbook piezoelectric coupling, rotating-wave approximation, and Bose–Einstein thermal occupation. No new particles or forces are introduced; ‘effective vibrational mass’ and dual-aperture cavity geometry are operational constructs with independent simulation/measurement handles.

free parameters (4)
  • electromechanical coupling rates g_n (per mechanical mode) = e.g. 2g ≈ 2π×17.08 MHz (85 GHz device), 2π×36.24 MHz (110 GHz device)
    Extracted by complex multi-mode fit of S11 (Main Eq. 2 / SM Eq. 6); central to reported cooperativity.
  • mechanical linewidths Γ_b,n and cavity Γ_a,load, Γ_a,e = device-dependent; e.g. Γ_b ≈ 2π×3.81 MHz avg (85 GHz strong-coupling set)
    Fitted from the same S11 model; enter C = 4g²/(Γ_a,load Γ_b) and Q_b = f_b/Γ_b.
  • electrical delay τ, complex scale A, mismatch phase Φ
    Nuisance parameters in the complex S11 fit (SM); affect absolute calibration of circles but not the existence of avoided crossings.
  • microwave energy participation p_LN and overlap η in theoretical g = p_LN ≈ 0.8 (85 GHz), ≈ 0.45 (109 GHz); η≈1
    Taken from simulation (p_LN≈0.8 / 0.45) and assumed η≈1 to compare theory vs measured g; not used to claim strong coupling.
axioms (4)
  • domain assumption Linear piezo-electromechanical Hamiltonian H = ℏω_a a†a + ℏω_b b†b − ℏg(a+a†)(b+b†) with rotating-wave approximation for S11.
    Stated as Main Eqs. 1–2; standard for cavity piezo systems and used for all fits and cooperativity.
  • domain assumption Odd-order thickness-shear frequencies f_n = n v/(2L) with nearly constant shear velocity, and only odd n couple to a z-uniform E field.
    Main Eq. 3 and surrounding text; used to assign mode orders and validate FSR against thickness.
  • standard math Thermal phonon occupancy follows the Bose–Einstein distribution n_th = 1/(exp(hf/kT)−1).
    Used in Discussion to claim n_th≈0.38 at 110 GHz and 4.1 K without direct occupancy measurement.
  • domain assumption Semi-1D transverse mechanical profile tracks local microwave |E(x,y)| so contact-loss and mode-area estimates follow from field simulations.
    SM §§III–V; underpins Q_contact~2e7 and effective-mass / mode-area numbers.
invented entities (2)
  • Dual circular-aperture 3D cavity piezo-electromechanical coupler for bulk LN independent evidence
    purpose: Confine mm-wave E-field in a sub-mm³ LN volume without electrode contact while preserving high cavity Q.
    Hardware geometry introduced and simulated in Fig. 1(b); independently checkable by microwave simulation and S11, not a new physical field or particle.
  • Effective vibrational mass of the driven TS mode region (0.21–5.0 mg) independent evidence
    purpose: Quantify macroscopic character of the resonator for zero-point displacement estimates.
    Defined via RMS displacement conventions from cited works; depends on simulated mode area, not a new ontological entity.

reviewed 2026-07-14 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Accessing 100 GHz Mechanical Modes in Bulk Crystals at Cryogenic Temperatures." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/765IJJLK

@misc{pith2026260710737,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Accessing 100 GHz Mechanical Modes in Bulk Crystals at Cryogenic Temperatures},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/765IJJLK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.10737}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Sub-terahertz electromechanics offers a promising route to probe mechanical quantum motion at experimentally friendly Kelvin temperatures. Traditionally, high-frequency mechanical resonators rely on advanced microfabrication to shape complex microstructures, while bulk crystals have been largely overlooked due to their large inertia and challenging transduction at such frequencies. Here we show that bulk lithium niobate can host mechanically accessible modes near 100 GHz when coupled via plug-and-play three-dimensional microwave cavities. This approach enables efficient, non-contact excitation of centimeter-scale, milligram-mass vibrational modes across 7.0--110 GHz, with mechanical quality factors up to 30,000 at W band. Furthermore, using a frequency-tunable superconducting niobium cavity at 4 K, we demonstrate strong coupling between a microwave cavity mode and multiple mechanical modes, enabling coherent energy exchange between microwave photons and mechanical phonons with cooperativity up to 16.6 at 110 GHz. These results establish a versatile platform for accessing massive high-frequency mechanical modes and for precision tests of mechanical quantum physics at elevated temperatures.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.10737 by Boxuan Tian, Hong X. Tang, Jiacheng Xie.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Bulk crystal cavity piezo–electromechanical coupling. (a) Schematic diagram of the one [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Mechanical modes with niobium cavity at cryogenic temperatures (4.2 K). Measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Strong coupling between a tunable superconducting cavity and multiple mechanical modes. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Polarization splitting of mechanical modes. (a,b) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Mechanical quality factors [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. (a)–(d) show the measured real part, fitted real part, measured imaginary part, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Cavity mode simulations for four different devices operating at 8 GHz, 33 GHz, 85 GHz, and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Time-domain ringdown analysis. (a) Numerically calculated time-domain ringdown re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Power and temperature dependence. (a,b) Color maps of the reflection spectra of the device [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. (a) Microwave simulation for the 85 GHz LN-loaded device before and after removing the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Schematic of the experimental setup. The measurement chain and the cavity-tuning [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references

  1. [1]

    Poggio, C

    M. Poggio, C. Degen, H. Mamin, and D. Rugar, Physical Review Letters99, 017201 (2007)

    2007

  2. [2]

    K. H. Lee, T. G. McRae, G. I. Harris, J. Knittel, and W. P. Bowen, Physical Review Letters 104, 123604 (2010)

    2010

  3. [3]

    J. D. Teufel, T. Donner, D. Li, J. W. Harlow, M. Allman, K. Cicak, A. J. Sirois, J. D. Whittaker, K. W. Lehnert, and R. W. Simmonds, Nature475, 359 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    X. Han, W. Fu, C. Zhong, C.-L. Zou, Y. Xu, A. A. Sayem, M. Xu, S. Wang, R. Cheng, L. Jiang, et al., Nature Communications11, 3237 (2020)

    2020

  5. [5]

    T. Yoon, D. Mason, V. Jain, Y. Chu, P. Kharel, W. H. Renninger, L. Collins, L. Frunzio, R. J. Schoelkopf, and P. T. Rakich, Optica10, 110 (2023)

    2023

  6. [6]

    Y. Yang, I. Kladarić, M. Drimmer, U. von Lüpke, D. Lenterman, J. Bus, S. Marti, M. Fadel, and Y. Chu, Science386, 783 (2024)

    2024

  7. [8]

    Stannigel, P

    K. Stannigel, P. Komar, S. Habraken, S. Bennett, M. D. Lukin, P. Zoller, and P. Rabl, Physical Review Letters109, 013603 (2012)

    2012

  8. [9]

    Renninger, P

    W. Renninger, P. Kharel, R. Behunin, and P. Rakich, Nature Physics14, 601 (2018)

    2018

  9. [10]

    Anferov, F

    A. Anferov, F. Wan, S. P. Harvey, J. Simon, and D. I. Schuster, PRX Quantum6, 020336 (2025)

    2025

  10. [11]

    Kumar, A

    A. Kumar, A. Suleymanzade, M. Stone, L. Taneja, A. Anferov, D. I. Schuster, and J. Simon, 12 Nature615, 614 (2023)

    2023

  11. [12]

    X. Han, W. Fu, C.-L. Zou, L. Jiang, and H. X. Tang, Optica8, 1050 (2021)

    2021

  12. [13]

    I.-T. Chen, B. Li, S. Lee, S. Chakravarthi, K.-M. Fu, and M. Li, Nature Communications14, 7594 (2023)

    2023

  13. [14]

    A. D. O’Connell, M. Hofheinz, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Nee- ley, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides,et al., Nature464, 697 (2010)

    2010

  14. [15]

    J. T. Hill, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, J. Chan, and O. Painter, Nature Communications3, 1196 (2012)

    2012

  15. [16]

    E. E. Wollman, C. Lei, A. Weinstein, J. Suh, A. Kronwald, F. Marquardt, A. A. Clerk, and K. Schwab, Science349, 952 (2015)

    2015

  16. [17]

    Lecocq, J

    F. Lecocq, J. B. Clark, R. W. Simmonds, J. Aumentado, and J. D. Teufel, Physical Review X5, 041037 (2015)

    2015

  17. [19]

    E. A. Wollack, A. Y. Cleland, R. G. Gruenke, Z. Wang, P. Arrangoiz-Arriola, and A. H. Safavi-Naeini, Nature604, 463 (2022)

    2022

  18. [20]

    Arndt and K

    M. Arndt and K. Hornberger, Nature Physics10, 271 (2014)

    2014

  19. [21]

    Ockeloen-Korppi, E

    C. Ockeloen-Korppi, E. Damskägg, J.-M. Pirkkalainen, M. Asjad, A. Clerk, F. Massel, M. Woolley, and M. Sillanpää, Nature556, 478 (2018)

    2018

  20. [22]

    Q. Lin, B. He, and M. Xiao, Physical Review Applied13, 034030 (2020)

    2020

  21. [23]

    Galliou, M

    S. Galliou, M. Goryachev, R. Bourquin, P. Abbé, J. P. Aubry, and M. E. Tobar, Scientific reports3, 2132 (2013)

    2013

  22. [24]

    Schrinski, Y

    B. Schrinski, Y. Yang, U. Von Lüpke, M. Bild, Y. Chu, K. Hornberger, S. Nimmrichter, and M. Fadel, Physical Review Letters130, 133604 (2023)

    2023

  23. [25]

    Goryachev and M

    M. Goryachev and M. E. Tobar, Physical Review D90, 102005 (2014)

    2014

  24. [26]

    A. Lo, P. Haslinger, E. Mizrachi, L. Anderegg, H. Müller, M. Hohensee, M. Goryachev, and M. E. Tobar, Physical Review X6, 011018 (2016)

    2016

  25. [27]

    Omahen, S

    A. Omahen, S. Storz, M. Bild, D. Scheiwiller, M. Fadel, and Y. Chu, Physical Review Letters 136, 180802 (2026)

    2026

  26. [28]

    R. A. Johnson, inCRC handbook of electrical filters(CRC Press, 2020) pp. 377–388

    2020

  27. [29]

    Y.Yang, R.Lu, L.Gao, andS.Gong,IEEETransactionsonMicrowaveTheoryandTechniques 13 68, 5211 (2020)

    2020

  28. [30]

    J. Xie, M. Shen, Y. Xu, W. Fu, L. Yang, and H. X. Tang, Nature Electronics6, 301 (2023)

    2023

  29. [31]

    J. Xie, M. Shen, and H. X. Tang, Applied Physics Letters124(2024)

    2024

  30. [32]

    J. Xie, M. Shen, and H. X. Tang, Optica11, 724 (2024)

    2024

  31. [33]

    J. Xie, W. Wu, M. Shen, P. Fay, and H. X. Tang, Nature Communications16, 8549 (2025)

    2025

  32. [34]

    Kramer, B

    J. Kramer, B. T. Bosworth, L. Matto, N. R. Jungwirth, O. Barrera, F. Bergmann, S. Cho, V. Chulukhadze, M. Goorsky, N. D. Orloff, and R. Lu, Applied Physics Letters127, 012204 (2025)

    2025

  33. [35]

    Kramer, J

    J. Kramer, J. Campbell, T.-H. Hsu, I. Anderson, and R. Lu, Applied Physics Letters128, 102205 (2026)

    2026

  34. [36]

    D. Wang, J. Xie, Y. Guo, M. Shen, and H. X. Tang, Microsystems & Nanoengineering10, 124 (2024)

    2024

  35. [37]

    Frangi, M

    A. Frangi, M. Cremonesi, A. Jaakkola, and T. Pensala, Sensors and Actuators A: Physical 190, 127 (2013)

    2013

  36. [38]

    Hung and C

    L.-W. Hung and C. T.-C. Nguyen, Journal of Microelectromechanical Systems24, 458 (2014)

    2014

  37. [40]

    J. D. Teufel, D. Li, M. S. Allman, K. Cicak, A. Sirois, J. D. Whittaker, and R. Simmonds, Nature471, 204 (2011)

    2011

  38. [41]

    Verhagen, S

    E. Verhagen, S. Deléglise, S. Weis, A. Schliesser, and T. J. Kippenberg, Nature482, 63 (2012)

    2012

  39. [42]

    Lee, Applied Physics Letters79, 1342 (2001)

    M. Lee, Applied Physics Letters79, 1342 (2001)

    2001

  40. [43]

    H. M. Doeleman, T. Schatteburg, R. Benevides, S. Vollenweider, D. Macri, and Y. Chu, Physical Review Research5, 043140 (2023)

    2023

  41. [44]

    W. P. Mason and R. B. Lindsay, Physics Today12, 34 (1959)

    1959

  42. [45]

    Y. Yang, R. Lu, T. Manzaneque, and S. Gong, in2018 IEEE International Frequency Control Symposium (IFCS)(IEEE, 2018) pp. 1–5

    2018

  43. [46]

    Z. Hao, J. Cochran, Y.-C. Chang, H. Cole, and S. Shankar, arXiv preprint arXiv:2508.11137 (2025). 14 Accessing 100 GHz Mechanical Modes in Bulk Crystals at Cryogenic Temperatures: Supplemental Material In the Supplemental Material, we discuss the following topics: I. Cavity-phonon couplinggestimation. II. Fitting method and uncertainty estimation. III. Tr...

    arXiv 2025

  44. [47]

    Han, C.-L

    X. Han, C.-L. Zou, and H. X. Tang, Physical Review Letters117, 123603 (2016)

    2016

  45. [48]

    Kuznetsova, A

    I. Kuznetsova, A. Smirnov, V. Anisimkin, S. Gubin, M. A. Signore, L. Francioso, J. Kondoh, and V. Kolesov, Sensors20, 3349 (2020)

    2020

  46. [49]

    M. S. Khalil, M. J. A. Stoutimore, F. C. Wellstood, and K. D. Osborn, Journal of Applied Physics111, 054510 (2012)

    2012

  47. [50]

    Probst, F

    S. Probst, F. B. Song, P. A. Bushev, A. V. Ustinov, and M. Weides, Review of Scientific Instruments86, 024706 (2015)

    2015

  48. [51]

    White, Econometrica48, 817 (1980)

    H. White, Econometrica48, 817 (1980)

    1980

  49. [52]

    M. Bild, M. Fadel, Y. Yang, U. Von Lüpke, P. Martin, A. Bruno, and Y. Chu, Science380, 274 (2023)

    2023

  50. [53]

    H. H. Diamandi, Y. Luo, D. Mason, T. B. Kanmaz, S. Ghosh, M. Pavlovich, T. Yoon, R. Be- hunin, S. Puri, J. G. E. Harris, and P. T. Rakich, Nature Physics21, 1482 (2025)

    2025

  51. [54]

    H.M.Doeleman, T.Schatteburg, R.Benevides, S.Vollenweider, D.Macri, andY.Chu,Physical Review Research5, 043140 (2023)

    2023

  52. [55]

    Zorzetti, C

    S. Zorzetti, C. Wang, I. Gonin, S. Kazakov, T. Khabiboulline, A. Romanenko, V. P. Yakovlev, and A. Grassellino, Phys. Rev. B107, L220302 (2023). 14

    2023

This paper was first reviewed by grok-4.5 on July 14, 2026.