Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

Electric and Magnetic Field Nano-Sensing Using a New, Atomic-like Qubit in a Carbon Nanotube

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that two natural wavefunctions in a single carbon-nanotube quantum dot form a qubit whose transition senses electric fields more sensitively than a single-electron transistor and detects DC magnetic fields as well as NV…

desk verdict A credible new single-dot CNT qubit sensor with transport readout; the sensitivity claims rest on a two-level assumption that holds at a selected operating point, and that is the main thing to press. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.08249 v1 pith:WAK5GVSY submitted 2019-08-22 cond-mat.mes-hall quant-ph

Ilya Khivrich , Shahal Ilani This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mes-hallquant-ph
keywords carbonnanotubequbitsinglequantumdotsensingelectricfieldmagneticscanningprobetransportreadoutLandau-Zener-Stuckelberginterferometry
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper demonstrates a new kind of qubit formed from two natural electronic wavefunctions of a single carbon nanotube quantum dot, instead of from lithographically defined double-dot states. The two states, a spatially extended 'bright' state and a localized 'dark' state, differ in charge distribution and in orbital magnetic moment, so their transition responds to both electric and magnetic fields. Their very different transport visibility gives a built-in readout, and the coherence-limited transition is much sharper than the thermally broadened Coulomb peak of an SET. The authors quote an electric potential sensitivity of about $600\,\mu\mathrm{V}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$ and a DC magnetic field sensitivity around $39\,\mu_\mathrm{B}/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$, with the magnetic figure comparable to nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond. If right, this gives a simple cantilever-compatible tip that can map charge and magnetic signatures simultaneously.

What carries the argument

The central object is an 'atomic-like' qubit: the two natural states $|B\rangle$ and $|D\rangle$ of a single quantum dot in a carbon nanotube, taken at a crossing between a bright high-lying valley state and a dark low-lying opposite-valley state with opposite spin. The transition is described by $H = (\varepsilon(t)/2)\,\sigma_z + (\Delta/2)\,\sigma_x$, with detuning $\varepsilon$ steered by gates and by axial magnetic field and decoherence dominated by charge noise along the detuning axis at rate $\gamma_2$. The argument is carried by three differences between the two states: their spatial charge densities differ (extended versus localized), giving electric-field sensitivity and a nearly zero dipole but significant quadrupole and higher moments; their orbital magnetic moments differ (about $20\,\mu_\mathrm{B}$), giving magnetic sensitivity; and their tunnel couplings differ strongly, making the bright state conduct while the dark state blocks, which is the built-in readout. These differences turn the transition into a narrow, coherence-limited spectral line whose position reports the local fields.

What would settle it

Repeat the time-domain pulse sequence at a triple point flagged in Supplementary S9 as having a complex lineshape and look for occupation of a third state: if the measured return probability cannot be fitted by the two-state Bloch model with a single set of $\Delta$, $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$, or if a third state is directly detected in transport, then the closed two-level assumption underlying the quoted sensitivities fails at that operating point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that a single suspended carbon nanotube quantum dot, used at a magnetic-field-tuned crossing between a high-lying extended valley state and a low-lying localized opposite-valley state of opposite spin, behaves as a coherent two-level system whose transition energy is set by both local electric potential and axial magnetic field. Because the extended state tunnels readily while the localized state is dark, the qubit state can be read out directly in transport, and time-domain decay plus Landau-Zener-Stuckelberg interferometry give $T_2^* \approx 0.9\,\mu\mathrm{s}$. A two-state Bloch model with $\Delta = 2\pi\times 2\,\mathrm{GHz}$, $\gamma_1 = 2\pi\times 1.5\,\mathrm{MHz}$, and $\gamma_2 = 2\pi\times 185\,\mathrm{MHz}$ reproduces the decay, the detuning dependence, and the interferometry pattern; from that narrow coherence-limited line the authors extract the sensitivities quoted above. Using the seven-gate array, they image the two wavefunctions directly and show the dark-state charge is concentrated at the dot center, with the qubit charge redistribution about 100 nm wide.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that during the pulse sequence the system stays inside the two-state manifold $\{|B\rangle, |D\rangle\}$, so the Bloch equations with only the fitted parameters $\Delta$, $\gamma_1$, and $\gamma_2$ describe the dynamics; the authors note in Supplementary S9 that some lineshapes indicate additional states beyond N, B, and D, so the headline performance is established at selected simple triple points rather than generically.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The same cantilever geometry already used for scanning nanotube SETs should allow the qubit to be placed on a scanning tip and image electric and magnetic fields in a single scan.
  • Electric potential sensitivity is roughly an order of magnitude better than the device in its own SET mode and better than the best SETs reported for this device family, with spatial resolution around 100 nm in this device.
  • DC magnetic-field sensitivity is comparable to NV-center and scanning-Hall probes while operating at fields of 3-8 T, a range that is inconvenient for many NV and SQUID sensors.
  • Because the qubit needs only a single quantum dot and conventional fabrication, shorter single-gated devices should reach tens-of-nanometres resolution.
  • The coherence-limited transition line opens a route to time-domain sensing protocols, such as dynamic decoupling, if the coherence time can be extended.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is relaxometry-style sensing: since decoherence is dominated by charge noise along the detuning axis, driving or waiting near the degeneracy point could map local high-frequency field noise rather than only DC fields, analogous to NV relaxometry.
  • The near-zero dipole with nonzero quadrupole and higher moments implies the sensor is intrinsically immune to far-field uniform potentials and responds to local potential curvature, making it a gradient-sensitive near-field probe rather than a general voltmeter.
  • If $T_2^*$ is improved, the same two-state scheme should resolve single-electron charging events faster than an SET can, because the linewidth is set by coherence rather than by electron temperature; this could be tested by placing the qubit next to a tunable charge trap.
  • Choosing different working points in the gate-voltage and magnetic-field plane changes the ratio of electric to magnetic coupling, so the device can be tuned for charge-dominated or magnetization-dominated imaging depending on the target sample.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript reports a new qubit implementation in a single carbon nanotube quantum dot, formed from two natural electronic wavefunctions (labeled |B> and |D>) that differ in spatial charge distribution and magnetic moment. The authors demonstrate transport-based initialization and readout, direct imaging of the two wavefunctions via gate-resolved capacitance shifts, time-domain decay measurements, and Landau-Zener-Stückelberg interference. From fits of a two-level Bloch model they extract the tunneling splitting Δ and decoherence rates γ₁, γ₂, and use the resulting narrow, coherence-limited transition to argue for electric-field detection sensitivity significantly better than a scanning SET, plus DC magnetic-field sensitivity comparable to NV centers. The device geometry is compatible with scanning probe operation.

Significance. If the central claim holds, this is a genuinely new type of scanning-probe-compatible quantum sensor: a single-dot qubit with built-in transport readout, simultaneous electric and magnetic field sensitivity, and a small form factor. The paper has several concrete strengths: the charge-density cross-check in Fig. 3e (imaged bright-minus-dark density reproducing the directly measured BD transition density) is a nontrivial internal consistency test; one set of parameters (Δ, γ₁, γ₂) is used to describe both time-domain decays and the LZS pattern; and the sensitivity estimates include noise statistics from six repeated scans. The manuscript also frames the sensor side by side with the SET benchmark at the same triple point, which is the right comparison. The main weakness is that the coherence-limited-sensitivity claim rests on the assumption of a closed two-level manifold, and the authors themselves note in Supp. S9 that other states appear in some vertices, so the load-bearing assumption needs an independent check at the specific working point.

major comments (3)
  1. [Supp. S9 and §4 (two-level model)] The closed two-level manifold {|B>,|D>} is load-bearing for the headline claims, because the fitted parameters Δ, γ₁, γ₂ and the resulting 'coherence-limited' linewidth are extracted from a Bloch model that excludes all other states. However, Supp. S9 states that in some vertices 'these lineshapes are more complex than the simple case described in the manuscript, and indicate the existence of other states in addition to N,B,D.' The authors assert that the chosen vertex is representative, but no independent check is given at the exact vertex used for the sensitivity numbers in Fig. 5 and Supp. S7. A direct coherent-control measurement at that vertex—for example Rabi oscillations or a multi-frequency LZS analysis—would distinguish a genuine two-level coherent transition from an effective rate-equation model. Without such a check, the extracted γ₂ and the converted sensitivities must be regarded as effective parameters, and the 'coherence-limited' attribution is not fully established.
  2. [§4, Fig. 4e,f and Supp. S10] The claim that the LZS pattern is reproduced 'quantitatively well' with the same parameters is central to demonstrating coherence, but no quantitative comparison is provided. The manuscript should report a goodness-of-fit metric (e.g., residuals or χ²) and, more importantly, a comparison between the coherent LZS simulation and an incoherent rate-equation model constrained to have the same linewidth. The simulation in Supp. S10 uses Lindblad propagation over two consecutive steps with separate probe/readout detunings; the authors should state explicitly how initialization and readout infidelity are included, since the steady-state occupation depends on both. This is needed to rule out the possibility that the observed patterns arise from an effective two-level relaxation process with the same fitted rates.
  3. [Supp. S7 and S8, Fig. 5] The conversion from measured gate-voltage sensitivity (δΔ = 60 μeV/√Hz) to electric-potential sensitivity (δV ≈ 600 μV/√Hz) uses the reconstructed charge redistribution ρ_BD(x) from Supp. S3, which is itself a fitted two-Gaussian model (parameters A1, A2, w1, w2). The manuscript should report how uncertainties in these fitted parameters propagate into the quoted potential sensitivity, and should state separately the sensitivity at the actual measurement point (gate 4, δV ≈ 1.4 mV) and the 'optimally located source' value used in the abstract and conclusion. This distinction is important because the claim of superiority over the SET is quantitative, and the optimal-source conversion is model-dependent.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract should specify that the electric-field sensitivity comparison is for DC electric potential and is demonstrated at a selected triple point; as written, 'significantly better electric field detection sensitivity' could be read as a general statement.
  2. [Fig. 2 caption] The caption labels both the bright-state and dark-state density panels as 'c.'; the second should be labeled 'd.' to match the text.
  3. [Supp. S9] The phrase 'only some of the vertices in the transport diagram were measured' should be reconciled with the assertion that the mechanism is generic; please clarify how many vertices were tested and how representative the chosen working point is within the tested set.
  4. [§2 (Device description)] The sentence 'The device is cooled in a dry dilution refrigerator, with an electron temperature of T_e ~ 60 mK as measured by the width of CB peaks' omits the value of the magnetic field at which this temperature was measured; if the width is field-dependent, this should be stated.
  5. [Throughout] The notation oscillates between 'Δ' and 'Delta', and between 'B||' and 'B_||'; please standardize the symbols for the tunneling splitting, the magnetic field, and the lever arms.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's claims are experimental measurements with model parameters fitted to independent data and cross-checked by LZS simulation and separate calibrations.

full rationale

The paper does not derive its headline sensitivities from its own fit parameters by construction. The qubit dynamics are modeled with the standard two-level Hamiltonian H = (epsilon(t)/2) sigma_z + (Delta/2) sigma_x (Supp. Eq. S3), and the parameters Delta, gamma1, gamma2 are obtained by simultaneously fitting the model to the time-domain data in Fig. 4b,c (Supp. S5: 'By simultaneously fitting the model to the experimental data displayed in Fig. 4b,c and Fig. S4d (continuous lines) we obtain the values...'). The LZS interferometry data in Fig. 4e is then independently reproduced using those same parameters (main text: 'With the same parameters we also reproduce (Fig. 4f), quantitatively well, the LZS measurements in Fig 4e'), which is a genuine consistency check rather than a fitted-input prediction. The electric and magnetic field sensitivities are obtained directly from measured conductance slopes, measured noise, and independently calibrated lever arms (Supp. S6: lever arms from Coulomb diamond and LZS fringe spacing; Supp. S7: 'Using sigma_noise, the slope (dashed line) and the lever arm factor (S6), we find the sensitivity'). Gate imaging of charge distributions uses capacitance-shift measurements (Supp. S2) and is compared with the difference of independently imaged bright and dark densities in Fig. 3e, again a cross-check rather than a self-definition. The comparison with SET sensitivity is a direct measurement in both modalities in Fig. 5. Self-citations appear for established methods (scanning SET geometry, electrostatic simulation validation, tank-circuit conductance measurement), but none of these citations supplies the central claim that the transition is a coherent two-level qubit; that claim rests on the measured time-domain curves and LZS interference. Supp. S9 admits that some vertices show 'the existence of other states in addition to N,B,D,' which is a caveat about generality and model scope, not a circular reduction of the results to their inputs. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained against the measured data, and no load-bearing step reduces to its own input by definition or by self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 8 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This paper is an experimental demonstration rather than a derivation, so the ledger is dominated by calibrated device parameters and modeling choices. The central sensitivity and coherence claims depend on the fitted Bloch rates, lever arms, magnetic moments, and the assumption of a closed two-level manifold. No new physical entities are introduced. The model parameters are honestly reported with confidence intervals, but they are fitted, not derived.

free parameters (8)
  • Delta (bright-dark tunneling splitting) = 2π × (2 ± 0.12) MHz
    Fitted to time-domain decay curves (Figs. 4b,c) and used in LZS simulation; sets the avoided-crossing energy scale.
  • gamma_1 (Delta-noise decoherence rate) = 2π × (1.5 ± 0.15) MHz
    Fitted in the Bloch model; couples through sigma_x, limiting coherence at zero detuning.
  • gamma_2 (epsilon-noise dephasing rate) = 2π × (185 ± 6) MHz
    Fitted in the Bloch model; couples through sigma_z and sets the transition linewidth and T2* of about 0.9 ns.
  • alpha_B (bright-state lever arm) = approximately 0.15
    Calibrated from Coulomb diamond (Supp. S6) and used to convert gate detuning to energy.
  • alpha_D (dark-state lever arm) = approximately 0.2
    Derived from measured charging-line slopes and the B-D line slope (Eq. S12); critical for electric potential sensitivity.
  • mu_B (bright-state magnetic moment) = approximately -0.08 meV/T
    Obtained from the magnetic-field slope of the bright charging line; contributes to B-field response.
  • mu_D (dark-state magnetic moment) = approximately 1.1 meV/T
    Obtained from the magnetic-field slope of the dark charging line; the difference of about 1.2 meV/T yields the DC B-field sensitivity.
  • Charge redistribution Gaussian parameters (A1, A2, w1, w2) = optimized numerically, not quoted
    Two-Gaussian model fitted to gate-shift data in Supp. S3 to deconvolve the about 100 nm spatial width and Delta q about 0.1 e; these feed the potential sensitivity estimate.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Valley index remains a good quantum number in the CNT quantum dot, so B_parallel produces four independent single-particle ladders that cross as drawn in Fig. 1a.
    Stated explicitly in the basis-of-qubit section; if valley mixing occurs, the bright/dark assignment and magnetic moments are not valid.
  • ad hoc to paper The system is a closed two-level manifold {|B>,|D>} during the pulse sequence.
    Required for the Bloch equation model; Supp. S9 warns that other states appear at some vertices, so this holds only at the selected working point.
  • domain assumption The dark state's transport is negligible because of valley-dependent tunnel barriers, so measured conductance is proportional to bright-state occupation.
    Underpins the readout model and Eq. S10; if the dark state conducts, the extracted occupation probabilities are biased.
  • ad hoc to paper Decoherence is dominated by Markovian white charge noise along the detuning axis epsilon plus smaller noise in Delta.
    Adopted in Supp. S4 without spectral measurements; alternative noise spectra would change the extracted gamma_1, gamma_2 and the attribution 'coherence-limited.'
  • domain assumption Finite-element electrostatic simulations of the gate potentials describe the actual device to within about 10%.
    Used in Supp. S2 and S3 to convert gate shifts to charge densities and to deconvolve the spatial width; validation is from earlier papers by the group.
  • domain assumption The normalization of density differences is one electron for charging transitions and zero net charge for the B-D transition.
    Used in Supp. S2 to calibrate the delta V maps; if the normalization is wrong, the imaged densities and sensitivities change.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electric and Magnetic Field Nano-Sensing Using a New, Atomic-like Qubit in a Carbon Nanotube." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WAK5GVSY

@misc{pith2026190808249,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electric and Magnetic Field Nano-Sensing Using a New, Atomic-like Qubit in a Carbon Nanotube},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WAK5GVSY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.08249}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum sensing techniques have been successful in pushing the sensitivity limits in numerous fields, and hold great promise for scanning probes that study nano-scale devices and novel materials. However, forming a nano-scale qubit that is simple and robust enough to be placed on a scanning tip, and sensitive enough to detect various physical observables, is still a great challenge. Here we demonstrate a conceptually new qubit implementation in a carbon nanotube that achieves these requirements. In contrast to the prevailing semiconducting qubits that use electronic states in double quantum dots, our qubit utilizes the natural electronic wavefunctions in a single quantum dot. Using an ultraclean nanotube we construct a qubit from two wavefunctions with significantly different magnetic moments and spatial charge distributions, making it sensitive to both magnetic and electric fields. We use an array of gates to directly image these wavefunctions and demonstrate their localized moments. Owing to their different spatial structure, these wavefunctions also show radically different transport properties, giving us a simple transport-based qubit readout mechanism. Due to its narrow coherence-limited transition, the qubit demonstrates significantly better electric field detection sensitivity than a single electron transistor. Moreover, with the same qubit we demonstrate simultaneous probing of magnetic fields with DC sensitivity comparable to that of NV centers. Our technique has minimal requirements for device complexity, which can be implemented using a number of straightforward fabrication methods. These features make this atomic-like qubit a powerful new tool that enables a variety of new nanoscale imaging experiments.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.08249 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Natural wavefunctions qubit in a carbon n [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Imaging the bright and dark states' spati [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Time domain measurements of the qubit tra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Measuring the decay and coherence times o [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Comparing SET and qubit performance in se [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 42 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Huber, M. E. et al. Gradiometric micro-SQUID susceptometer for scannin g measurements of mesoscopic samples. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 79, 053704 (2008)

    work page 2008

  2. [2]

    Chang, A. M. et al. Scanning Hall probe microscopy. Appl. Phys. Lett. 61, 1974– 1976 (1992)

    work page 1992

  3. [3]

    Maze, J. R. et al. Nanoscale magnetic sensing with an individual electronic spin in diamond. Nature 455, 644–647 (2008)

    2008

  4. [4]

    Melitz, W., Shen, J., Kummel, A. C. & Lee, S. Ke lvin probe force microscopy and its application. Surf. Sci. Rep. 66, 1–27 (2011)

    work page 2011

  5. [5]

    & Pohl, D

    Muralt, P. & Pohl, D. W. Scanning tunneling pote ntiometry. Appl. Phys. Lett. 48, 514–516 (1986)

    work page 1986

  6. [6]

    Yoo, M. J. Scanning Single-Electron Transistor M icroscopy: Imaging Individual Charges. Science 276, 579–582 (1997)

    work page 1997

  7. [7]

    Dolde, F. et al. Electric-field sensing using single diamond spins. Nat. Phys. 7, 459–463 (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Doherty, M. W. et al. The nitrogen-vacancy colour centre in diamond. Phys. Rep. 528, 1–45 (2013)

    work page 2013

Show all 46 references
  1. [9]

    Zwanenburg, F. A. et al. Silicon quantum electronics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 961– 1019 (2013). 12

    2013

  2. [10]

    Morello, A. et al. Single-shot readout of an electron spin in silicon. Nature 467, 687–691 (2010)

    2010

  3. [11]

    Koch, J. et al. Charge-insensitive qubit design derived from the Cooper pair box. Phys. Rev. A - At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 76, 1–19 (2007)

    2007

  4. [12]

    Petta, J. R. Coherent Manipulation of Coupled E lectron Spins in Semiconductor Quantum Dots. Science 309, 2180–2184 (2005)

    2005

  5. [13]

    D., Jeong , Y

    Hayashi, T., Fujisawa, T., Cheong, H. D., Jeong , Y. H. & Hirayama, Y. Coherent manipulation of electronic States in a double quant um dot. Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 226804 (2003)

    2003

  6. [14]

    & Dai, H

    Cao, J., Wang, Q. & Dai, H. Electron transport in very clean, as-grown suspended carbon nanotubes. Nat. Mater. 4, 745–749 (2005)

    2005

  7. [15]

    Waissman, J. et al. Realization of pristine and locally tunable one-di mensional electron systems in carbon nanotubes. Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 569–574 (2013)

    2013

  8. [16]

    Churchill, H. O. H. et al. Electron–nuclear interaction in 13C nanotube doubl e quantum dots. Nat. Phys. 5, 321–326 (2009)

    2009

  9. [17]

    A., Pei, F

    Laird, E. A., Pei, F. & Kouwenhoven, L. P. A va lley–spin qubit in a carbon nanotube. Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 565–568 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    J., Dartiailh, M

    Viennot, J. J., Dartiailh, M. C., Cottet, A. & Kontos, T. Coherent coupling of a single spin to microwave cavity photons. Science 349, 408–411 (2015)

    2015

  11. [19]

    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

  12. [20]

    Honig, M. et al. Local electrostatic imaging of striped domain orde r in LaAlO 3/SrTiO3. Nat. Mater. 12, 1112–1118 (2013)

    2013

  13. [22]

    N., Ashhab, S

    Shevchenko, S. N., Ashhab, S. & Nori, F. Landau –Zener–Stückelberg interferometry. Phys. Rep. 492, 1–30 (2010). 13

    2010

  14. [23]

    Sulpizio, J. A. et al. Visualizing Poiseuille flow of hydrodynamic electr ons. Preprint at http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.11662 (2019)

    2019 arXiv

  15. [24]

    Thiel, L. et al. Quantitative nanoscale vortex imaging using a cryogenic quantum magnetometer. Nat. Nanotechnol. 11, 677–681 (2016)

    2016

  16. [25]

    W., Luan, L., Moler, K

    Hicks, C. W., Luan, L., Moler, K. A., Zeldov, E . & Shtrikman, H. Noise characteristics of 100nm scale GaAs∕AlxGa1−xAs scan ning Hall probes. Appl. Phys. Lett. 90, 133512 (2007)

    2007

  17. [26]

    Kuemmeth, F., Ilani, S., Ralph, D. C. & McEuen, P. L. Coupling of spin and orbital motion of electrons in carbon nanotubes. Nature 452, 448–452 (2008)

    2008

  18. [27]

    Ella, L. et al. Simultaneous voltage and current density imaging o f flowing electrons in two dimensions. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 480–487 (2019)

    2019

  19. [28]

    Khivrich, I., Clerk, A. A. & Ilani, S. Nanomech anical pump–probe measurements of insulating electronic states in a c arbon nanotube. Nat. Nanotechnol. 14, 161–168 (2019)

    2019

  20. [29]

    Spin States and Spin-Orbit Couplin g in Nanostructures

    Kuemmeth, F. Spin States and Spin-Orbit Couplin g in Nanostructures. Phd Diss. (2008)

    2008

  21. [30]

    D., Yaish, Y., Sazonova, V

    Minot, E. D., Yaish, Y., Sazonova, V. & McEuen, P. L. Determination of electron orbital magnetic moments in carbon nanotub es. Nature 428, 536–539 (2004)

    2004

  22. [31]

    Donarini, A. et al. Coherent population trapping by dark state formati on in a carbon nanotube quantum dot. Nat. Commun. 10, 381 (2019)

    2019

  23. [32]

    Oliver, W. D. et al. Physics: Mach-Zehnder interferometry in a strongly driven superconducting qubit. Science 310, 1653–1657 (2005)

    2005

  24. [33]

    & Falkovich, G

    Levitov, L. & Falkovich, G. Electron viscosity, current vortices and negative nonlocal resistance in graphene. Nat. Phys. 12, 672–676 (2016)

    2016

  25. [34]

    Khomskii, D. I. & Freimuth, a. Charged vortice s in high temperature superconductors. Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1384–1386 (1995). 14

    1995

  26. [35]

    & Scott, J

    Catalan, G., Seidel, J., Ramesh, R. & Scott, J. F. Domain wall nanoelectronics. Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 119–156 (2012). 15 Figure 1: Natural wavefunctions qubit in a carbon nanotube . a. Single particle energy spectrum of a single quantum dot in a carbon nanotube, as a funct ion o...

    2012

  27. [36]

    General approach ............................... ............................................................................ 2

  28. [37]

    Imaging charging lines ......................... ........................................................................... 3

  29. [38]

    Imaging BD transition line ...................... ........................................................................ 4 S3. Determining the qubit charge redistribution .... ............................................................. 4 S4. Theoretical description of deco...

  30. [39]

    General approach The gate-based imaging experiments described in Fig 2c , 2d and 3e in the main text give a spatial picture of how the local density along the na notube changes as we cross transitions between the three relevant states in our experiment: |∫a1840⟩, |∫a1828⟩ and ...

  31. [40]

    global voltage shifts required to return the charging condition (Fig

    Imaging charging lines The shifts along the global voltage axis of the bright charging line ( ∫a2012∫a1848∫a3030 ∫a3015∫a3003 ) are found as the shift of the center of the Coulomb blockade peak ( |∫a1840⟩ ↔ |∫a1828⟩) for each perturbed gate, i.e. global voltage shifts required...

  32. [41]

    Imaging BD transition line Two key differences compared to the previous case ar e a different assumed normalization (∫ ∫a1850∫a1870∫a4000∫a2025∫a3015∫a3003 − ∫a2025∫a3015∫a3005 ∫a4007 = 0), and a different compensation vector: ∫a1874 = ∫a40000,0,1,1,1,0,0∫a4007 due to AWG outp...

  33. [42]

    Kalra, R. et al. Vibration-induced electrical noise in a cryogen-free dilution refrigerator: Characterization, mitigation, and impact on qubit coherence. Rev. Sci. Instrum. 87, 1–13 (2016)

    2016

  34. [43]

    Waissman, J. et al. Realization of pristine and locally tunable one-dimensional electron systems in carbon nanotubes. Nat. Nanotechnol. 8, 569–574 (2013)

    2013

  35. [44]

    Shapir, I. et al. Imaging the electronic Wigner crystal in one dimension. Science 364, 870–875 (2019)

    2019

  36. [45]

    N., Ashhab, S

    Shevchenko, S. N., Ashhab, S. & Nori, F. Landau-Z ener-Stückelberg interferometry. Phys. Rep. 492, 1–30 (2010)

    2010

  37. [46]

    Dial, O. E. et al. Charge Noise Spectroscopy Using Coherent Exchange Oscillations in a Singlet-Triplet Qubit. Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 146804 (2013)

    2013

  38. [47]

    R., Nation, P

    Johansson, J. R., Nation, P. D. & Nori, F. QuTiP 2 : A Python framework for the dynamics of open quantum systems. Comput. Phys. Commun. 184, 1234–1240 (2013)

    2013

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.