Macroscopic quantum effects and gravitational wave detector

Truecrimson
Messages
262
Reaction score
86
My first thread here. Please bear with my lack of knowledge.

I talked to a physics grad student about whether it's fair to describe QM as a theory applied only to microscopic objects. Although the definition of "fair" is ambiguous, at least he told me that, from his understanding, he wouldn't apply QM to macroscopic objects. (Other than that, it seems like if QM doesn't have a GR-like descriptional power, he'll refute to say that QM applies to big things.) But I think the consensus seems to be that it's the interection with environment that counts.

Then I remember having heard someone talking about macroscopic QM related to a certain gravitational wave detector experiment. Some quick searches give these results, in chronological order.

1) Zurek's Physics Today decoherence article refers to the paper by Caves et al.and say that we need to apply quantum mechanics to the Weber bar that weighs a ton.

2) http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/3%20
Published July 14, 2008

A part of the abstract
Researchers have long sought to detect quantum effects in macroscopic objects, analogous to the superposition of states in Schrodinger’s cat that is both dead and alive. The development of ultrasensitive measurement techniques used in quantum computing and gravity wave detection may offer a way to experimentally test these ideas...

3) http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/11/7/073032/fulltext#SECTIONREF
Published 16 July 2009

A part of the abstract
This work shows how the exquisite sensitivity necessary to detect gravitational waves can be made available to probe the validity of quantum mechanics on an enormous mass scale.

Did the approach in 1) successful? What're the difference between 2) and 3)?
I'd like to hear from experts here how much has been done and what we can expect, or want to see, in this direction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Not an expert in QM. AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is quite different from the classical wave equation. The former is an equation for the dynamics of the state of a (quantum?) system, the latter is an equation for the dynamics of a (classical) degree of freedom. As a matter of fact, Schrödinger's equation is first order in time derivatives, while the classical wave equation is second order. But, AFAIK, Schrödinger's equation is a wave equation; only its interpretation makes it non-classical...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
Is it possible, and fruitful, to use certain conceptual and technical tools from effective field theory (coarse-graining/integrating-out, power-counting, matching, RG) to think about the relationship between the fundamental (quantum) and the emergent (classical), both to account for the quasi-autonomy of the classical level and to quantify residual quantum corrections? By “emergent,” I mean the following: after integrating out fast/irrelevant quantum degrees of freedom (high-energy modes...

Similar threads

Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
45
Views
12K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
4K
Back
Top