Linking Measures for Macroscopic Quantum States via Photon-Spin Mapping F. Fröwisa,∗, N. Sangouarda,b,, N. Gisina aGroup of Applied Physics, University of Geneva, CH-1211 Geneva 4, Switzerland bDepartment of Physics, University of Basel, CH-4056 Basel, Switzerland Abstract We review and compare several measures that identify quantum states that are “macroscopically quantum”. These measures were initially formulated either for photonic systems or spin ensembles. Here, we compare them through a simple model which maps photonic states to spin ensembles. On the one hand, we reveal problems for some spin measures to handle correctly photonic states that typically are considered to be macroscopically quantum. On the other hand, we find significant similarities between other measures even though they were differently motivated. 1. Introduction for problems concerning the validity and interpretation of quantum mechanics. As well, they immediately yield a The first experiments that triggered the development practical aspect, for instance, in view of efforts to realize of quantum mechanics were conducted by relatively sim- large-scale quantum computing. ple means. After the theoretical framework has been es- Against this background, it is somehow astonishing tablished, the effort to experimentally verify some much that a commonly accepted framework of “macroscopic quan- more demanding predictions like entanglement and non- tum physics” is still lacking. The famous gedanken ex- locality increased significantly. Nowadays, we master ex- periment of Schrödinger [18] ponders on the existence of perimental techniques that even led to commercial prod- large objects in a superposition of two classical, distinct ucts such as secure communication and true random num- states like a cat being dead and alive. Complementary, ber generators. Furthermore, it is by now possible to en- Leggett [19, 20] argued that, in large systems, there is ter the quantum regime of “large” systems; large either difference between an accumulated quantum effect origi- in terms of mass, energy or number of involved micro- nated on a microscopic scale and a “true” quantum effect scopic constituents. Among other contributions, experi- on a macroscopic scale. While the former is undoubtedly menters brought superconducting devices [1–3] and mas- an experimental challenge due to the complexity and the sive mechanical oscillators [4, 5] to the quantum regime; large number of degrees of freedom, only the latter is sup- one observed interference effects with giant molecules [6], posed to provide insight into the aforementioned problems. entangled diamonds [7], cells [8], doped crystals [9] and Based on these and other contributions [21], many physi- large spin ensembles [10–12]; we also witnessed entangle- cists came up with measures to quantify how “macroscopi- ment between optical modes including hundreds of pho- cally quantum” a state is [22–30]. Such mathematical def- tons [13, 14]. Arguable, all these experiments show quan- initions potentially provide a clear view on macroscopic tum behavior in large systems. But how could one com- quantum effects. Furthermore, an established definition is pare them? In which sense is one more macroscopically the basis for theoretical conclusions of, for example, the quantum than another one? Answers to these and simi- stability of macroscopic quantum states with respect to lar questions would allow us to challenge old but still un- noise [22, 31] and measurement imperfections [32]. solved problems. One of those is the transition between arXiv:1405.0051v2 [quant-ph] 3 Dec 2014 Due to the many proposals on the characterization of microscopic and macroscopic domain. How and in which macroscopic quantum states, it is clearly necessary to com- sense do large systems become “classical” — after all, they pare those measures in order to understand the similari- are composed of microscopic particles that are quantum ties and differences. First attempts have been made in mechanically in nature? Some proposals try to answer Refs. [28], where several measures suitable for spin mea- suchlike questions within quantum theory. For instance, sures [22, 23, 25, 26, 28] have been classified. Another work the decoherence program [15] provides a mechanism for [33] applies some measures [21, 25, 26, 28] to a specific the loss of quantum correlations that typically becomes multi-mode photon state. The ultimate goal is to provide stronger for larger systems. Other ideas suggest a solution a general framework for macroscopic quantum effects that by extending the theory as it is done, for example, in col- covers all important physical systems. With this, one is lapse models [16, 17]. Clearly, these efforts are important able to directly compare different systems. For instance, ∗Corresponding author one could then compare experiments on trapped ions with Email address: [email protected] (F. Fröwis) massive objects in the superposition of spatial positions Preprint submitted to Elsevier November 8, 2018 (see additional remarks in Sec. 5). (some proposals are even defined for mixed states). The In this paper, we aim to continue this research line larger f( ), the more macroscopically quantum j i is. Of- by bridging measures that were formulated for spin sys- ten, f is called the effective size of j i. The qualitative dis- tems [22, 23, 25, 26, 28] and for single photonic modes tinction between macroscopic and non-macroscopic quan- [27, 30] (some of them are valid for both systems). To this tum states based on f is to some extent arbitrary. end, we use a simple model of a photon-spin mapping, in System size.— All published proposals agree that a particular, the absorption of a photonic state into a spin quantum state can only be macroscopically quantum if the ensemble. Under the assumption that the properties of respective system size is in some sense “large”. For systems the photonic state are completely mapped to the spin en- composed of microscopic particles, it is necessary to have semble, we have a tool at hand to analyze and compare in many constituents. If one considers one (or few) bosonic which sense states are macroscopically quantum according modes, we require to have high excitation numbers or high to different measures. masses. The exact values for having a “large” system are In the following, we draw some conclusions for several not crucial for the present discussion. As we are concerned measures based on this mapping. As we will see later, it with spin and photonic systems in this paper, the system is necessary that the mean photon number, N, of the con- size is defined as the number of spin-1=2 particles, M, or sidered state is much smaller than the number of the spins the mean photon number, N, respectively. in the ensemble, M. After the mapping, N corresponds to Schrödinger-cat state vs. macroscopic quantum state.— the excitation level of the spins. In this regime, we observe A first distinction of the current literature can be made by that some measures for spin states behave differently than the basic form of the states considered to be macroscopic. in the case where N is comparable with M, which is the Some authors [23, 25, 26, 30] consider superpositions of regime where they have been studied so far. Apparently, two (or a few) “classical” states like through this work we also understand better the present proposals and learn about the implications of their initial j i / j 0i + j 1i : (1) intuition. On the other side, we find that there are tight mathe- In a simplified way, one can say that one seeks a mathe- matical connections between certain measures, even though matical definition for the verbal characterization that the the physical motivation for introducing them is apparently states j 0i and j 1i are “macroscopically distinct” (Leggett very different. We conclude therefore that, at least par- [19]). In the remainder of this paper, we call macroscopic tially, there exists already some consensus on the charac- superpositions of the form (1) a Schrödinger-cat state. terization of macroscopic quantum states among the present On the other side, some proposals [22, 24, 27–29] do not proposals. require a specific form of the quantum state and may even This paper is structured as follows. In Sec. 2, we set allow for mixed states. States that are macroscopically the basic nomenclature and summarize the existing pro- quantum due to these definitions are here called macro- posals in the field of macroscopic quantum states. We also scopic quantum states (see examples below). If any confu- review some established implications on the stability. In sion is excluded, we also use this term as an umbrella term Sec. 3, we introduce and elaborate on the model for the that includes the concept of a Schrödinger-cat state. photon-spin interaction we use to link different measures. Scaling versus absolute numbers.— Experiments that Some implications are discussed in Sec. 4. Conclusions and aim to generate macroscopic quantum states may be in- outlook are given in Sec. 5. terested in states j i with large f( ). In such a case, the absolute value of the normalized f( ) is the figure of merit. In turn, in many theoretical studies, one does not only con- 2. Review of measures for macroscopic quantum sider a fixed system size but more abstractly state families. states A state family is a prescription that assigns to any system size a quantum state j i. Then, one can investigate, for In this section, we first clarify some subtle but im- example, the scaling of f( ) with the system size.1 The portant points for the discussion of macroscopic quantum larger the scaling for f( ), the more macroscopically quan- physics (Sec. 2.1). Then, in Secs. 2.2 and 2.3, we give a tum is the respective state family j i. In this paper, we rough overview on some measures for macroscopic quan- focus on how the considered measures scale.