Macroscopic quantum states: measures, fragility and implementations Florian Fröwis1,∗ Pavel Sekatski2,∗ Wolfgang Dür2,y Nicolas Gisin1, and Nicolas Sangouard3 1Group of Applied Physics - Université de Genève - CH-1211 Geneva - Switzerland 2Institut für Theoretische Physik - Universität Innsbruck - Technikerstraße 21a - A-6020 Innsbruck - Austria 3Quantum Optics Theory Group - Department of Physics - University of Basel - CH-4056 Basel - Switzerland (Dated: June 20, 2018) Large-scale quantum effects have always played an important role in the foundations of quantum theory. With recent experimental progress and the aspiration for quantum en- hanced applications, the interest in macroscopic quantum effects has been reinforced. In this review, we critically analyze and discuss measures aiming to quantify various aspects of macroscopic quantumness. We survey recent results on the difficulties and prospects to create, maintain and detect macroscopic quantum states. The role of macroscopic quantum states in foundational questions as well as practical applications is outlined. Finally, we present past and on-going experimental advances aiming to generate and observe macroscopic quantum states. CONTENTS 2. Linking measures for photons and spins 28 F. Connection to multipartite entanglement 28 I. Introduction 2 G. Connection to resource theory of coherence 28 A. Defining macroscopic quantumness: not an easy task 2 1. Resource theory for macroscopic coherence 29 B. Motivation 4 2. Free operations in proposed measures 29 C. Terminology 5 H. How to determine the effective size in experiments 30 D. Physical systems 5 1. Macroscopic distinctness 30 1. Spin ensemble 5 2. Macroscopic coherence 30 2. Photonic systems 7 3. Measuring loss of coherence 31 3. Massive systems 7 4. Correlations for index q 31 4. Superconducting systems 8 I. Summary and conclusion 31 E. Structure of the review and reading guide 8 III. Limits for observing quantum properties in macroscopic II. Measures for macroscopic superpositions and quantum states 32 states 8 A. Maintaining macroscopic quantum states 32 A. Summary of measures 8 1. Decoherence 32 1. Leggett (1980, 2002) 9 2. Fragility of macroscopic quantum superpositions 33 2. Dür et al. (2002) 10 3. Sensitivity of macroscopic quantum states 34 3. Shimizu and Miyadera (2002) and followups 10 B. Measuring and detecting macroscopic quantum states 35 4. Björk and Mana (2004) 11 1. Coarse-graining and control of measurements 35 5. Cavalcanti and Reid (2006, 2008) 12 2. Reference frames and the size of measurement 6. Korsbakken et al. (2007) 12 apparatus 36 7. Marquardt et al. (2008) 13 C. Preparation of macroscopic quantum states 36 8. Lee and Jeong (2011) and Park et al. (2016) 13 D. Further limitations and counter-strategies 37 9. Fröwis and Dür (2012b) and followups 14 1. Certifiability of large-scale quantum states 37 10. Nimmrichter and Hornberger (2013) 15 2. Counter-strategies against noise 37 11. Sekatski et al. (2014c, 2017b) 15 3. Counter-strategies against coarse-graining 38 12. Laghaout et al. (2015) 16 4. Encoded macroscopic quantum states 38 13. Yadin and Vedral (2015) 17 E. Summary 39 14. Kwon et al. (2017) 17 B. Examples 18 IV. Potentials of macroscopic quantum states 39 1. Spin ensemble 18 A. Probing the limits of quantum theory 39 2. Photonic systems 21 1. Macrorealism and Leggett-Garg-like inequalities 39 C. Classifications of measures 23 2. Validity of quantum mechanics at large scales - 1. Mechanisms to break unitary equivalence 23 Collapse models 40 2. Goals of the measures 23 B. Quantum metrology 41 D. Structure of applied states 24 C. Quantum computing 41 arXiv:1706.06173v2 [quant-ph] 19 Jun 2018 1. Macroscopic superpositions 25 1. MBQC, entanglement and macroscopicity 41 2. Macroscopic quantum states 25 2. States occurring in quantum computation and 3. Connections between some measures 26 metrology 42 E. Application to various physical setups 27 3. Quantum phase transitions 43 1. Implications of large variance 27 D. Summary 43 V. Implementations 43 A. Photonic experiments 43 1. Optical photons 43 ∗ These authors contributed equally. 2. Microwave photons 46 y Electronic address: [email protected] B. Spin experiments 47 2 1. Spins with individual addressing 47 degrees of freedom. In all cases, a reduction of complex- 2. Spins with collective addressing 47 ity, often to a single degree of freedom, is considered in C. Experiments with massive systems 47 order to keep essential properties while making it theo- 1. Matter interferometry 48 2. Quantum optomechanics 49 retically tractable and bringing it closer to experimental D. Superconducting quantum interference devices 50 reality. While on an abstract level states might be iso- E. Comparing the size of states describing photonic, spins morphic, there is no consensus whether a superposition and massive systems 50 state with different spin values or different positions of 1. Discussions on the size of flux states in SQUID systems 51 the wave packet can equally well be called a macroscopic 2. Comparing the size of observed states 52 superposition. The latter for instance is affected by grav- F. Summary 53 itational collapse and allows to test proposed modifica- VI. Discussion and outlook 53 tions of quantum mechanics, while the former is not. An- other issue is how particle number, distance and mass Acknowledgments. 54 enter in the assessment. How can we compare the spa- References 54 tial superposition of a single atom being 1 m apart to a Bose-Einstein condensate with one million atoms where the center-of-mass is separated by 1 µm? To address I. INTRODUCTION these issues, one needs to formalize the observation that “dead and alive” are more than two orthogonal states in With recent progresses in experimental physics, it is a Hilbert space but are somehow “macroscopically dis- nowadays possible to investigate quantum effects such tinct”. Furthermore, it is unclear how to take into ac- as interference and entanglement in larger and larger count loss of coherence (i.e., purity). Is there a way to systems. Experimentalists bring mechanical oscillators deal with reduced visibility when scaling-up the system to the quantum regime, set interferometers with single size? Finally, the quest does not end with macroscopic giant molecules, produce superposition states with many superpositions of two states. Generalizations to arbitrary atoms, photons and high superconducting currents, or quantum states including mixed states are important to reveal entanglement in many-body systems.1 Starting further abstract the problem and to apply the theoretical with Leggett (1980), many physicists came up with concepts directly to experiments. measures to compare these experiments, that is, to In this review we summarize and discuss proposals to quantify how macroscopic and quantum a state is. Such measure quantum states (or entire experiments) concern- measures allow one to characterize sets of states and ing some aspect of macroscopic quantumness. We do not to study systematically the requirements to observe only aim to give a technical summary of the measures, the quantum features of macroscopic states. From a but also to facilitate a discussion of the motivation and fundamental point of view, this helps to gain insight into intuition behind them, as well as relations between the the quantum-to-classical transition and to investigate different proposals. We then discuss fundamental diffi- the limits of quantum theory. From a more applied per- culties and limitations to prepare, maintain and certify spective, this is useful to reveal general mechanisms for macroscopic quantum states, and briefly mention poten- quantum enhancement in applications such as quantum tial applications in foundations of quantum mechanics as computing and metrology. well as quantum metrology and quantum computation. Finally, we evaluate the current status of experimental It should be emphasized, though, that identifying key progress by reviewing experiments with different systems, features of macroscopic quantumness is highly contro- and applying different measures and proposals to assess versial. Intuitively, any approach should distinguish a their level of macroscopic quantumness. In the remainder genuine macroscopic quantum effect from accumulated of the introduction, we specify more precisely the scope microscopic effects. However, already the precise mean- of the review, clarify the motivation and the terminology ing of these and similar words is unclear and disputed, and mention the structure of this paper. also because they are heavily loaded with emotions and prejudice. The example from Schrödinger (1935) of a cat in superposition of being dead and alive is a paradigmatic A. Defining macroscopic quantumness: not an easy task starting point for many considerations and experiments with different physical systems. But we face many open It is often claimed that quantum mechanics is one of questions. The first issue involves the role of the physical the most successful theories in physics. The basis of system (atoms, electrons, photons, etc.) and the different this assertion is its passing of all experimental tests so far. This is certainly true in the microscopic realm. Here, we are interested in large systems, that is, ex- periments involving many atoms, photons or electrons. 1 See Sec. V for references and further details. There, the experimental evidence and its interpretation 3 are less clear. As mentioned by several physicists such cause the unease of Schrödinger and many others? We as Leggett (1980), many well-established large-scale ex- now list some aspects frequently appearing in the litera- periments can be seen as a macroscopic accumulation of ture that is discussed in this review. microscopic quantum effects. As an example, the genuine (1) The superposition principle is one of the most quantum effect of Cooper pair formation in the BCS the- straightforward illustrations of the drastic difference be- ory of superconductivity is a two-electron problem and tween classical and quantum physics. For any two pos- many-body correlations are not necessary to observe su- sible quantum states jAi and jDi, the superposition perconductivity on human scales (Leggett, 1980).