Quantum nanoelectromechanics with electrons, quasi-particles and Cooper pairs: effective bath descriptions and strong feedback effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using a quantum-noise approach, we discuss the physics of both normal metal and superconducting single-electron transistors (SSETs) coupled to mechanical resonators. Particular attention is paid to the regime where transport occurs via incoherent Cooper-pair tunnelling (either via the Josephson quasi-particle (JQP) or double JQP (DJQP) process). We show that, surprisingly, the back-action of tunnelling Cooper pairs (or superconducting quasi-particles) can be used to significantly cool the oscillator. We also discuss the physical origin of negative-damping effects in this system and how they can lead to a regime of strong electromechanical feedback, where despite a weak SET–oscillator coupling, the motion of the oscillator strongly effects the tunnelling of the Cooper pairs. We show that in this regime, the oscillator is characterized by an energy-dependent effective temperature . Finally, we discuss the strong analogy between back-action effects of incoherent Cooper-pair tunnelling and ponderomotive effects in an optical cavity with a moveable mirror; in our case, tunnelling Cooper pairs play the role of the cavity photons.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".