We develop a stoichiometric silicon nitride (SiN) membrane-based electromechanical system, in which the spring constant of the mechanical resonator can be dynamically controlled via piezoelectric actuation. The degenerate parametric amplifier is studied in this configuration. We observe the splitting of mechanical mode in the response spectra of a phase-sensitive parametric amplifier. In addition, we demonstrate that the quality factor Q of the membrane oscillator can be significantly enhanced by more than two orders of magnitude due to the coherent amplification, reaching an effective Q factor of ∼3 × 108 at room temperature. The nonlinear effect on the parametric amplification is also investigated, as well as the thermomechanical noise squeezing. This system offers the possibility to integrate electrical, optical and mechanical degrees of freedom without compromising the exceptional material properties of SiN membranes, and can be a useful platform for studying cavity optoelectromechanics.

Recent years have witnessed great progress in the fabrication and manipulation of micro-/nanomechanical resonators. Micro-/nanomechanical resonators can be utilized to implement precision measurements and ultrasensitive sensors as well as fundamental studies on the boundary between quantum and classical physics.1,2 Tremendous accomplishments have been achieved in this field, including ground-state cooling of mechanical resonators,3–6 quantum squeezing of mechanical modes,7–9 generation of squeezed light,10–12 and detection of mechanical motion with an imprecision down to the standard quantum limit.13–16 

Among various mechanical oscillators, silicon nitride (SiN) membranes have attracted a lot of interest due to their exceptional material properties, e.g. very high mechanical Q factors and ultralow optical absorption for near infrared light. These features enable the SiN membrane as an excellent candidate for studying optomechanics. Recently, SiN membranes with intrinsic mechanical Q factors as large as 108 have been achieved at room temperature.17–20 By placing such a flexible SiN membrane inside a high-finesse optical cavity, a cavity optomechanical device with the integration of ultrahigh Q mechanical oscillator and high-finesse optical resonator can be implemented.21–27 

In the meantime, electrically controllable optomechanical systems exhibit striking advantages and have been a new field of interest recently.28–35 The electrical actuation can usually be much stronger than the photonic coupling via radiation pressure, which provides the opportunity of more efficient control and the access to nonlinear regime. Typical optoelectromechanical systems utilize the dielectricity or piezoelectricity of the mechanical oscillator itself, such as silica microtoroids,28 aluminum nitride (AlN) and gallium arsenide (GaAs) optomechanical crystals,30,34 and AlN microwheel cavities.31,32 The mechanical Q factors in most of these optoelectromechanical systems require to be further improved in order to obtain longer phonon lifetimes.

In this work, we develop a SiN membrane-based electromechanical system, and investigate the performance of this system by studying degenerate parametric amplification. Parametric resonance is of interest to many fields of physics.36 Optical parametric amplifier has witnessed its great success in quantum optics, nonlinear optics, and laser physics. As a counterpart, mechanical parametric effect has attracted significant attention with the development of fabrication techniques recently.37–48 By directly attaching the substrate of the membrane to a ring piezoelectric actuator, not only can we actuate the membrane oscillation electrically, but more importantly, the stress and thereby the spring constant of the membrane oscillator can also be dynamically modulated via piezoelectric actuation. Such a simple configuration, which does not require complicated nano/micro-fabrication techniques with all the components commercially available, offers several advantages compared to other systems: (i) The spring constant of a high Q SiN membrane oscillator can be electrically controlled without reducing its excellent performance. In principle, the same way can be applied on the ultrahigh Q membranes.17–20 (ii) Such an electrical channel can also be used within a feedback loop.49–53 Incorporation of optomechanical interaction and quantum limited detection would offer a useful platform to study cavity optoelectromechanics. (iii) The piezoelectric way is more straightforward than the reservoir engineering method, without requiring appropriate geometric and material design.54 

In the experiment we use a 50 nm-thick by 500-μm-square window of stoichiometric low-pressure chemical vapor deposition SiN membrane supported by a 5×5 mm2 size and 200 μm-thick silicon frame from NORCADA Inc. The resonant frequencies of the membrane’s vibrational modes are fij=σ(i2+j2)/4ρl2, where σ ∼0.9 GPa is the tensile stress, ρ ∼ 2.7 g/cm3 is the mass density, l is the side length of the square membrane, and i, j are the positive integer mode indices. Typically, such a membrane has large mechanical Q factors in the range of 105−106 and vibrational frequencies in hundreds kHz to MHz range.55–60 

The membrane frame is directly glued to the ring piezo actuator at three corners, as shown in Fig. 1(a). As the piezo actuator expands in the thickness mode, it will contact the radial mode, which leads to the deformation of the frame (substrate). The SiN membrane can be understood as a drum with an equilibrium length l0 stretched to the length l of the frame.56 The stress is proportional to the difference between l0 and l. The deformation of the frame, i.e. either squeezed or stretched, results in the changes of stress and the spring constant of the membrane. Figure 1(b) presents the frequency dependence of (3, 3) mode as a function of the voltage applied on the ring piezo actuator. The red dots are the experimental data and the blue line is the linear fit, which indicates that the frequency sensitivity for (3,3) mode is -100Hz/V. This relation holds for a wide dynamic range and hence it can be an additional ingredient to control the property of membrane besides the optomechanical interaction when the membrane is applied for an optomechanical system. The frequency dependence for several other modes is also investigated. We find that the induced frequency fluctuations of different vibrational modes under such conditions are highly correlated. This feature is utilized to actively stabilize the vibrational frequencies of membrane in the experiment, which has a faster response compared to the photothermal feedback.54,61

FIG. 1.

(a) The image of the SiN membrane attached to the ring piezo actuator. (b) The frequency shift of (3,3) mode as a function of the voltage applied on the ring piezo actuator. (c) The schematic of the experimental system. The signal/pump fields are for the parametric amplification process, and the drive/feedback fields are for the stabilization of the vibrational eigenmodes. Beam splitter (BS); proportional-integral-derivative controller (PID); the phase channel of the lock-in amplifier (θ).

FIG. 1.

(a) The image of the SiN membrane attached to the ring piezo actuator. (b) The frequency shift of (3,3) mode as a function of the voltage applied on the ring piezo actuator. (c) The schematic of the experimental system. The signal/pump fields are for the parametric amplification process, and the drive/feedback fields are for the stabilization of the vibrational eigenmodes. Beam splitter (BS); proportional-integral-derivative controller (PID); the phase channel of the lock-in amplifier (θ).

Close modal

The experimental schematic is shown in Fig. 1(c). The membrane is placed in a vacuum chamber which is ion-pumped to ∼10−8 torr. The electric fields applied on the ring piezo actuator include the signal/pump fields for the parametric amplifier, and the drive/feedback fields for stabilizing the vibrational eigenmodes. The mechanical oscillations are transduced optically by a Michelson interferometer with displacement sensitivity better than 10 fm/Hz1/2, which is stabilized with a second piezo actuator, as shown in Fig. 1(c). It is worth noting that the displacement sensitivity can be significantly enhanced by placing the current membrane system inside a high-finesse optical cavity without any modification.

The equation of motion for a parametrically excited mechanical oscillator is36 

(1)

where x(t) is the membrane displacement, m is the effective mass, ω0 is the eigenfrequency of the mechanical oscillator, Q is the quality factor, k0=mω02 is the spring constant, kp(F0) is the amplitude of the pump (signal) field, Δps) is the frequency detuning of the pump (signal) field, and ϕ denotes for the phase of the signal relative to the pump field.

When the system is in the limit of weak damping and small oscillation, the secular perturbation theory62 can be used to solve Eq. (1). We consider the parametrically pumped mechanical response spectrum of the membrane oscillator under the degenerate case, where the pump frequency is always tuned to be twice the signal frequency, i.e. Δp = Δs = Δ. Then the response amplitude is given by62 

(2)

Here kth = 2k0/Q is the instability threshold of the parametric amplification, and a constant response factor is omitted in Eq. (2).

As one can see in Eq. (2), the parametrically pumped mechanical response spectrum is sensitive to the relative phase between the pump and signal fields. Figure 2(a) shows a Lorentzian profile of the signal field when the parametric pump field is absent. When the signal field has a phase π/4 relative to the pump, i.e. ϕ = 45°, there is a symmetric splitting in the mechanical response spectrum,40,41 as shown in Fig. 2(b). The origin of splitting in the spectrum is the destructive interference in cooperation with the dissipation of the membrane oscillator. When the signal and pump fields are not exactly out of phase (ϕ = 45°), the splitting of mechanical mode becomes asymmetric, as illustrated in Figs. 2(c) and 2(d), in which the relative phase is 1.5 degrees deviated from π/4, i.e., ϕ = 45° ± 1.5°. Figures 2(e–h) present the experimental measurements corresponding to the cases shown in Figs. 2(a–d), respectively, which finds excellent agreement with the theoretical predictions. During the measurement, the signal and pump fields are both applied on the ring piezo actuator and frequency scan with a fixed phase. This is quite different compared to the situation when the signal frequency scans with the pump frequency fixed, since then the phase difference between the two fields is not a constant.62 The parametric pump strength is below threshold with kp/kth = 0.9. The signal amplitude is not important for this measurement as long as it is not large enough to consider nonlinearity. Such a spectroscopic signature of parametric amplification in the out of phase situation has been observed in mechanical systems,40,41 as well as in an optical parametric amplifier.63 In analogy to the quantum optical systems, the phase-sensitive mechanical parametric amplifier can be useful for applications such as phase-sensitive switching,64,65 information storage,66 and logic operations.67 

FIG. 2.

The mechanical response spectra of the membrane at the parametric excitation. Theoretical simulations for (a) without parametric pump; (b) ϕ = 45°; (c) ϕ = 45° − 1.5°; (d) ϕ = 45° + 1.5°. kp/kth = 0.9 for all the cases in (a-d). (e-h) Experimental measurements for the cases corresponding to (a-d), respectively.

FIG. 2.

The mechanical response spectra of the membrane at the parametric excitation. Theoretical simulations for (a) without parametric pump; (b) ϕ = 45°; (c) ϕ = 45° − 1.5°; (d) ϕ = 45° + 1.5°. kp/kth = 0.9 for all the cases in (a-d). (e-h) Experimental measurements for the cases corresponding to (a-d), respectively.

Close modal

When the signal field resonates with the eigenmode of the membrane oscillator, and the pump field is perfectly tuned to be twice the signal field, i.e., Δ = 0, the gain of the parametric amplifier is62 

(3)

Figure 3 represents the amplitude gain as a function of the pump amplitude relative to the pump threshold. The black diamonds represent the deamplification case. The sine term in Eq. (3) dominates when ϕ = π/4, and this leads to the suppression of the signal field, which is limited to -3 dB near the instability threshold.37 On the contrary, the cosine term remains if ϕ = −π/4, which results in the amplification of the signal field. Previously, we do not consider the nonlinearity, therefore, as the pump amplitude approaches to the threshold, the parametric gain increases to infinity if ϕ = −π/4. However, the mechanical nonlinearities always exist in practical, even comparatively small nonlinearity will limit the gain of amplifier.44,45 The red squares, blue dots, and green triangles respectively represent the parametric amplification for different signal amplitudes, and they are saturated at different gain levels, as one can see in Fig. 3. The maximum gain obtained below the threshold is ∼10 instead of infinity. Although the nonlinearity degrades the performance of parametric amplifier, it provides the opportunity that the nonlinear parametric amplifier can be operated above the linear instability threshold, which can be utilized to study non-equilibrium dynamics.48 

FIG. 3.

Parametric amplification/deamplification as a function of the pump amplitude relative to the pump threshold. The black diamonds show the deamplification case, i.e. ϕ = π/4. The red squares, blue dots, and green triangles illustrate the parametric amplification (ϕ = −π/4) for different signal amplitudes respectively. The nonlinearity limits the amplifier gain. The blue dashed line indicates the instability threshold, which is determined by the onset of the self-oscillation.

FIG. 3.

Parametric amplification/deamplification as a function of the pump amplitude relative to the pump threshold. The black diamonds show the deamplification case, i.e. ϕ = π/4. The red squares, blue dots, and green triangles illustrate the parametric amplification (ϕ = −π/4) for different signal amplitudes respectively. The nonlinearity limits the amplifier gain. The blue dashed line indicates the instability threshold, which is determined by the onset of the self-oscillation.

Close modal

Now we study the enhanced mechanical Q factor with parametric excitation.38,42,43,45 As the parametric pump strength increases, the gain goes up and the resonance peak becomes narrower, therefore, the effective quality factor Q is enhanced, which is measured by the mechanical ringdown technique. To perform the ringdown measurement, we first set Δp = Δs = 0, after maximizing the amplitude by tuning the relative phase between the signal and pump fields, we turn off the signal field and measure the decay of the oscillation. The signal field is chosen to be ∼10 − 100 times larger than the thermal amplitude of the membrane. Figure 4 shows the dependence of Q factor for different pump amplitudes. The enhancement of Q factor more than two orders of magnitude has been observed due to the coherent amplification, reaching a Q factor of ∼3 × 108 at room temperature. The inset shows the mechanical ringdown measurements correspond to the cases for the intrinsic and parametrically enhanced quality factors, which are 106 and 108 respectively. In principle, a higher Q factor is possible to achieve by choosing a vibration mode with a larger intrinsic Q factor.17 The highest Q factor obtained in the current system is operated slightly above the threshold. The mechanical nonlinearities, e.g. the cubic term, give a smooth response as the pump amplitude goes across the threshold and prevent the collapse of linewidth, since the effective linear damping becomes negative in the instability regime if the nonlinearity is ignored.62 When the parametric pump is above the instability threshold, many interesting nonlinear dynamic processes can emerge, which will be our future studies. It is worth mentioning that the linewidth narrowing or enhancement of Q factor, which is typically related to the amplification of oscillation amplitude, has also been observed in various mechanical systems via other types of excitation, such as optical pumping,68–70 electrical feedback amplification,71 and optical band-gap excitation.72 

FIG. 4.

The enhanced mechanical Q factor with parametric excitation as a function of the pump amplitude relative to the threshold. The inset is the mechanical ringdown response for the membrane without (Q ∼ 106) and with parametric resonant excitation (Q ∼ 108). The red thick curves are the experimental data and the blue thin curves are the exponential fits.

FIG. 4.

The enhanced mechanical Q factor with parametric excitation as a function of the pump amplitude relative to the threshold. The inset is the mechanical ringdown response for the membrane without (Q ∼ 106) and with parametric resonant excitation (Q ∼ 108). The red thick curves are the experimental data and the blue thin curves are the exponential fits.

Close modal

A further interesting development related to the parametric amplification is to create a mechanical thermal squeezed state.37,47,54 The thermal motion of the membrane oscillator can be decomposed into two quadratures x(t) = X1(t) cos ω0t + X2(t) sin ω0t in a frame rotating at the mechanical resonance frequency ω0, where X1(t) and X2(t) are stochastic Gaussian noise with variance <X12>=<X22>=kBT/mω02, where kB is the Boltzmann constant and T is the temperature. When the parametric pump field is applied, the quadrature of the motion in phase with the parametric modulation is amplified and the orthogonal quadrature is deamplified, leading to the parametric squeezing of the thermal mechanical motion in the phase space. X1(t) and X2(t) are measured by the two-phase lock-in amplifier (Zurich Instruments HF2LI). The probability density functions of the membrane oscillator in the phase space for the thermal and parametrically squeezed cases are shown in Figs. 5(a) and 5(b), respectively. The thermalmechanical noise reduction of -2.1 dB has been obtained in our system, which is limited to -3 dB since the achievable deamplification with parametric excitation is bounded to 1/2.

FIG. 5.

The probability density functions of the membrane oscillator in the phase space for the thermal (a) and parametrically squeezed (b) cases, respectively.

FIG. 5.

The probability density functions of the membrane oscillator in the phase space for the thermal (a) and parametrically squeezed (b) cases, respectively.

Close modal

In conclusion, we have demonstrated the degenerate parametric amplification in a SiN membrane through piezoelectric driving. The results presented in this letter provide a simple and straightforward way to modulate the spring constant of a SiN membrane with a high intrinsic mechanical Q, which can offer a versatile platform for studying the optoelectromechanics by combining the optomechanical interaction and quantum limited measurements. The implemented system is an ideal nonlinear oscillator with multiple controllable systematic parameters, which allows to study many interesting physical phenomena, such as symmetry breaking,48 phase transitions,73 topological operations,74 and Efimovian dynamics.75 This might potentially open the avenue to applications in fundamental physics, ultrasensitive measurements, and quantum feedback controls.

This research is supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2017YFA0304201), National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grants No. 11374101, No. 91536112 and No. 11704126), Natural Science Foundation of Shanghai (17ZR1443100), the Shanghai Sailing Program (17YF1403900), the Program for Professor of Special Appointment (Eastern Scholar) at Shanghai Institutions of Higher Learning.

1.
T. J.
Kippenberg
and
K. J.
Vahala
,
Science
321
,
1172
(
2008
).
2.
M.
Aspelmeyer
,
T. J.
Kippenberg
, and
F.
Marquardt
,
Reviews of Modern Physics
86
,
1391
(
2014
).
3.
A. D.
O’Connell
,
M.
Hofheinz
,
M.
Ansmann
,
R. C.
Bialczak
,
M.
Lenander
,
E.
Lucero
,
M.
Neeley
,
D.
Sank
,
H.
Wang
,
M.
Weides
,
J.
Wenner
,
J. M.
Martinis
, and
A. N.
Cleland
,
Nature
464
,
697
(
2010
).
4.
J.
Teufel
,
T.
Donner
,
D.
Li
,
J.
Harlow
,
M.
Allman
,
K.
Cicak
,
A.
Sirois
,
J. D.
Whittaker
,
K.
Lehnert
, and
R. W.
Simmonds
,
Nature
475
,
359
(
2011
).
5.
J.
Chan
,
T. M.
Alegre
,
A. H.
Safavi-Naeini
,
J. T.
Hill
,
A.
Krause
,
S.
Gröblacher
,
M.
Aspelmeyer
, and
O.
Painter
,
Nature
478
,
89
(
2011
).
6.
R.
Peterson
,
T.
Purdy
,
N.
Kampel
,
R.
Andrews
,
P.-L.
Yu
,
K.
Lehnert
, and
C.
Regal
,
Physical Review Letters
116
,
063601
(
2016
).
7.
E. E.
Wollman
,
C.
Lei
,
A.
Weinstein
,
J.
Suh
,
A.
Kronwald
,
F.
Marquardt
,
A.
Clerk
, and
K.
Schwab
,
Science
349
,
952
(
2015
).
8.
F.
Lecocq
,
J. B.
Clark
,
R. W.
Simmonds
,
J.
Aumentado
, and
J. D.
Teufel
,
Physical Review X
5
,
041037
(
2015
).
9.
J.-M.
Pirkkalainen
,
E.
Damskägg
,
M.
Brandt
,
F.
Massel
, and
M. A.
Sillanpää
,
Physical Review Letters
115
,
243601
(
2015
).
10.
D. W.
Brooks
,
T.
Botter
,
S.
Schreppler
,
T. P.
Purdy
,
N.
Brahms
, and
D. M.
Stamper-Kurn
,
Nature
488
,
476
(
2012
).
11.
T.
Purdy
,
P.-L.
Yu
,
R.
Peterson
,
N.
Kampel
, and
C.
Regal
,
Physical Review X
3
,
031012
(
2013
).
12.
A. H.
Safavi-Naeini
,
S.
Gröblacher
,
J. T.
Hill
,
J.
Chan
,
M.
Aspelmeyer
, and
O.
Painter
,
Nature
500
,
185
(
2013
).
13.
J.
Teufel
,
T.
Donner
,
M.
Castellanos-Beltran
,
J.
Harlow
, and
K.
Lehnert
,
Nature Nanotechnology
4
,
820
(
2009
).
14.
A.
Schliesser
,
O.
Arcizet
,
R.
Rivière
,
G.
Anetsberger
, and
T.
Kippenberg
,
Nature Physics
5
,
509
(
2009
).
15.
T.
Rocheleau
,
T.
Ndukum
,
C.
Macklin
,
J.
Hertzberg
,
A.
Clerk
, and
K.
Schwab
,
Nature
463
,
72
(
2010
).
16.
T. P.
Purdy
,
R. W.
Peterson
, and
C.
Regal
,
Science
339
,
801
(
2013
).
17.
S.
Chakram
,
Y.
Patil
,
L.
Chang
, and
M.
Vengalattore
,
Physical Review Letters
112
,
127201
(
2014
).
18.
C.
Reinhardt
,
T.
Müller
,
A.
Bourassa
, and
J. C.
Sankey
,
Physical Review X
6
,
021001
(
2016
).
19.
R. A.
Norte
,
J. P.
Moura
, and
S.
Gröblacher
,
Physical Review Letters
116
,
147202
(
2016
).
20.
Y.
Tsaturyan
,
A.
Barg
,
E. S.
Polzik
, and
A.
Schliesser
,
Nature Nanotechnology
12
,
776
(
2017
).
21.
J.
Thompson
,
B.
Zwickl
,
A.
Jayich
,
F.
Marquardt
,
S.
Girvin
, and
J.
Harris
,
Nature
452
,
72
(
2008
).
22.
D.
Wilson
,
C.
Regal
,
S.
Papp
, and
H.
Kimble
,
Physical Review Letters
103
,
207204
(
2009
).
23.
T.
Purdy
,
R.
Peterson
,
P.
Yu
, and
C.
Regal
,
New Journal of Physics
14
,
115021
(
2012
).
24.
M.
Karuza
,
C.
Molinelli
,
M.
Galassi
,
C.
Biancofiore
,
R.
Natali
,
P.
Tombesi
,
G.
Di Giuseppe
, and
D.
Vitali
,
New Journal of Physics
14
,
095015
(
2012
).
25.
A.
Jöckel
,
A.
Faber
,
T.
Kampschulte
,
M.
Korppi
,
M. T.
Rakher
, and
P.
Treutlein
,
Nature Nanotechnology
10
,
55
(
2015
).
26.
A.
Sawadsky
,
H.
Kaufer
,
R. M.
Nia
,
S. P.
Tarabrin
,
F. Y.
Khalili
,
K.
Hammerer
, and
R.
Schnabel
,
Physical Review Letters
114
,
043601
(
2015
).
27.
H.
Xu
,
U.
Kemiktarak
,
J.
Fan
,
S.
Ragole
,
J.
Lawall
, and
J.
Taylor
,
Nature Communications
8
,
14481
(
2017
).
28.
K. H.
Lee
,
T. G.
McRae
,
G. I.
Harris
,
J.
Knittel
, and
W. P.
Bowen
,
Physical Review Letters
104
,
123604
(
2010
).
29.
S.
Sridaran
and
S. A.
Bhave
,
Optics Express
19
,
9020
(
2011
).
30.
J.
Bochmann
,
A.
Vainsencher
,
D. D.
Awschalom
, and
A. N.
Cleland
,
Nature Physics
9
,
712
(
2013
).
31.
C.
Xiong
,
L.
Fan
,
X.
Sun
, and
H. X.
Tang
,
Applied Physics Letters
102
,
021110
(
2013
).
32.
X.
Han
,
C.
Xiong
,
K. Y.
Fong
,
X.
Zhang
, and
H. X.
Tang
,
New Journal of Physics
16
,
063060
(
2014
).
33.
H.
Okamoto
,
T.
Watanabe
,
R.
Ohta
,
K.
Onomitsu
,
H.
Gotoh
,
T.
Sogawa
, and
H.
Yamaguchi
,
Nature Communications
6
,
8478
(
2015
).
34.
K. C.
Balram
,
M. I.
Davanço
,
J. D.
Song
, and
K.
Srinivasan
,
Nature Photonics
10
, nphoton (
2016
).
35.
X.
Han
,
C.-L.
Zou
, and
H. X.
Tang
,
Physical Review Letters
117
,
123603
(
2016
).
36.
L.
Landau
and
E.
Lifshitz
,
Mechanics
, 3rd (
2004
).
37.
D.
Rugar
and
P.
Grütter
,
Physical Review Letters
67
,
699
(
1991
).
38.
A.
Dana
,
F.
Ho
, and
Y.
Yamamoto
,
Applied Physics Letters
72
,
1152
(
1998
).
39.
K. L.
Turner
,
S. A.
Miller
,
P. G.
Hartwell
,
N. C.
MacDonald
,
S. H.
Strogatz
, and
S. G.
Adams
,
Nature
396
,
149
(
1998
).
40.
D. W.
Carr
,
S.
Evoy
,
L.
Sekaric
,
H.
Craighead
, and
J.
Parpia
,
Applied Physics Letters
77
,
1545
(
2000
).
41.
M.
Zalalutdinov
,
A.
Olkhovets
,
A.
Zehnder
,
B.
Ilic
,
D.
Czaplewski
,
H. G.
Craighead
, and
J. M.
Parpia
,
Applied Physics Letters
78
,
3142
(
2001
).
42.
M.
Zalalutdinov
,
A.
Zehnder
,
A.
Olkhovets
,
S.
Turner
,
L.
Sekaric
,
B.
Ilic
,
D.
Czaplewski
,
J. M.
Parpia
, and
H. G.
Craighead
,
Applied Physics Letters
79
,
695
(
2001
).
43.
I.
Mahboob
and
H.
Yamaguchi
,
Applied Physics Letters
92
,
253109
(
2008
).
44.
J. F.
Rhoads
and
S. W.
Shaw
,
Applied Physics Letters
96
,
234101
(
2010
).
45.
R.
Karabalin
,
S.
Masmanidis
, and
M.
Roukes
,
Applied Physics Letters
97
,
183101
(
2010
).
46.
A.
Szorkovszky
,
A. C.
Doherty
,
G. I.
Harris
, and
W. P.
Bowen
,
Physical Review Letters
107
,
213603
(
2011
).
47.
I.
Mahboob
,
H.
Okamoto
,
K.
Onomitsu
, and
H.
Yamaguchi
,
Physical Review Letters
113
,
167203
(
2014
).
48.
A.
Leuch
,
L.
Papariello
,
O.
Zilberberg
,
C. L.
Degen
,
R.
Chitra
, and
A.
Eichler
,
Physical Review Letters
117
,
214101
(
2016
).
49.
P.-F.
Cohadon
,
A.
Heidmann
, and
M.
Pinard
,
Physical Review Letters
83
,
3174
(
1999
).
50.
L. G.
Villanueva
,
R. B.
Karabalin
,
M. H.
Matheny
,
E.
Kenig
,
M. C.
Cross
, and
M. L.
Roukes
,
Nano Letters
11
,
5054
(
2011
).
51.
A.
Pontin
,
M.
Bonaldi
,
A.
Borrielli
,
F.
Cataliotti
,
F.
Marino
,
G.
Prodi
,
E.
Serra
, and
F.
Marin
,
Physical Review Letters
112
,
023601
(
2014
).
52.
C.
Schäfermeier
,
H.
Kerdoncuff
,
U. B.
Hoff
,
H.
Fu
,
A.
Huck
,
J.
Bilek
,
G. I.
Harris
,
W. P.
Bowen
,
T.
Gehring
, and
U. L.
Andersen
,
Nature Communications
7
,
13628
(
2016
).
53.
M.
Rossi
,
N.
Kralj
,
S.
Zippilli
,
R.
Natali
,
A.
Borrielli
,
G.
Pandraud
,
E.
Serra
,
G.
Di Giuseppe
, and
D.
Vitali
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
119
,
123603
(
2017
).
54.
Y.
Patil
,
S.
Chakram
,
L.
Chang
, and
M.
Vengalattore
,
Physical Review Letters
115
,
017202
(
2015
).
55.
B.
Zwickl
,
W.
Shanks
,
A.
Jayich
,
C.
Yang
,
A.
Bleszynski Jayich
,
J.
Thompson
, and
J.
Harris
,
Applied Physics Letters
92
,
103125
(
2008
).
56.
A.
Jöckel
,
M. T.
Rakher
,
M.
Korppi
,
S.
Camerer
,
D.
Hunger
,
M.
Mader
, and
P.
Treutlein
,
Applied Physics Letters
99
,
143109
(
2011
).
57.
I.
Wilson-Rae
,
R.
Barton
,
S.
Verbridge
,
D.
Southworth
,
B.
Ilic
,
H.
Craighead
, and
J.
Parpia
,
Physical Review Letters
106
,
047205
(
2011
).
58.
P.-L.
Yu
,
T.
Purdy
, and
C.
Regal
,
Physical Review Letters
108
,
083603
(
2012
).
59.
L. G.
Villanueva
and
S.
Schmid
,
Physical Review Letters
113
,
227201
(
2014
).
60.
Z.
Li
,
Q.
Zhang
,
X.
You
,
Y.
Li
, and
K.
Peng
,
Applied Physics Letters
109
,
191903
(
2016
).
61.
E.
Gavartin
,
P.
Verlot
, and
T. J.
Kippenberg
,
Nature Communications
4
(
2013
).
62.
R.
Lifshitz
and
M.
Cross
,
Nonlinear dynamics of nanomechanical resonators
(
Weinheim, Germany
:
Wiley-VCH Verlag GmbH & Co. KGaA
,
2010
), pp.
221
266
.
63.
H.
Ma
,
C.
Ye
,
D.
Wei
, and
J.
Zhang
,
Physical Review Letters
95
,
233601
(
2005
).
64.
J.
Sheng
,
U.
Khadka
, and
M.
Xiao
,
Physical Review Letters
109
,
223906
(
2012
).
65.
U.
Khadka
,
J.
Sheng
, and
M.
Xiao
,
Physical Review Letters
111
,
223601
(
2013
).
66.
V.
Fiore
,
Y.
Yang
,
M. C.
Kuzyk
,
R.
Barbour
,
L.
Tian
, and
H.
Wang
,
Physical Review Letters
107
,
133601
(
2011
).
67.
I.
Mahboob
and
H.
Yamaguchi
,
Nature Nanotechnology
3
,
275
(
2008
).
68.
H.
Rokhsari
,
M.
Hossein-Zadeh
,
A.
Hajimiri
, and
K.
Vahala
,
Applied Physics Letters
89
,
261109
(
2006
).
69.
I. S.
Grudinin
,
H.
Lee
,
O.
Painter
, and
K. J.
Vahala
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
104
,
083901
(
2010
).
70.
C.
Bekker
,
R.
Kalra
,
C.
Baker
, and
W. P.
Bowen
,
Optica
4
,
1196
(
2017
).
71.
M. A.
Taylor
,
A.
Szorkovszky
,
J.
Knittel
,
K. H.
Lee
,
T. G.
McRae
, and
W. P.
Bowen
,
Opt. Express
20
,
12742
(
2012
).
72.
H.
Okamoto
,
D.
Ito
,
K.
Onomitsu
,
H.
Sanada
,
H.
Gotoh
,
T.
Sogawa
, and
H.
Yamaguchi
,
Phys. Rev. Lett.
106
,
036801
(
2011
).
73.
K.
Kim
,
M.-S.
Heo
,
K.-H.
Lee
,
K.
Jang
,
H.-R.
Noh
,
D.
Kim
, and
W.
Jhe
,
Physical Review Letters
96
,
150601
(
2006
).
74.
H.
Xu
,
D.
Mason
,
L.
Jiang
, and
J.
Harris
,
Nature
537
,
80
(
2016
).
75.
S.
Deng
,
Z.-Y.
Shi
,
P.
Diao
,
Q.
Yu
,
H.
Zhai
,
R.
Qi
, and
H.
Wu
,
Science
353
,
371
(
2016
).