Abstract
To gain some appreciation of why any quantum phenomena on the macroscopic scale should be regarded as potentially important to developments in quantum mechanics we have to look back to the origins of the subject. Quantum mechanics today stands pre-eminent in Physics, being as important in calculating the subtleties of chemical bonding at roughly 10−8cm as describing the behaviour of quarks and gluons at 10−15cms. However, the unifying factor is always that these quantum objects are microscopic; not surprising since quantum mechanics was created originally to describe processes occurring in the atomic domain which were totally inexplicable in terms of the classical physics of the nineteenth century. This has imposed an operational structure on quantum mechanics which, although infrequently stated explicitly, may have limited its possibilities for development as a theory. This structure is simply stated. In quantum physics we have always been concerned with observing the behaviour of extremely small objects using experimental apparatus which is definitely macroscopic, i.e. on a length scale of roughly one centimetre to a few metres. This experimental situation carries with it two problems intimately connected with the interpretation of quantum mechanics. First, the effects of single microscopic events need to be amplified sufficiently to register (that is, make an irreversible record) in a large scale apparatus. This implies that a hierarchy of levels exists between an event occurring in a microscopic quantum object and the macroscopic environment — here, the apparatus to which it is coupled. Inevitably, as Feynman has emphasised1, this creates an intrinsic uncertainty in our knowledge of the event. Second, and equally important, there is no possibility of following the detailed time evolution of a single quantum object, given the disparity in size between this object and the external apparatus. In general we have to be satisfied with an average view of the behaviour of a large number of identically prepared microscopic quantum objects. Of course, it is perfectly proper to ask why the macroscopic apparatus, which, after all, is a condensed matter system, should be treated as classical when we know full well that condensed matter is composed of microscopic quantum objects (atoms)? This is a very good question which, to date, cannot be answered satisfactorily. All that we can say with certainty is that in a quantum physics experiment we always appear to require an apparatus which we can describe as classical, i.e. one which will not go into superposition of states with the quantum object of interest but will act irreversibly to make a permanent record of information concerning that object. It is a matter of fact that very complex condensed matter systems (with an enormous number of uncorrelated internal microscopic degrees of freedom) fit the bill perfectly.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
R.P. Feynman and A.R. Hibbs, “Quantum Mechanics and Path Integrals”, “Some Remaining Thoughts”, p.22 (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1965).
M. Pepper, Proc. Roy. Soc. A420. 1 (1988).
M. Pepper et al., “Electron Transport in GaAs-AlGaAs Microstructures” in “Macroscopic Quantum Phenomena”, Proc. Workshop at the University of Sussex, August 1990, eds. T.D. Clark, H. Prance, R.J. Prance and T.P. Spiller (World Scientific, Singapore, 1991).
D.A. Wharam, M. Pepper, H. Ahmed, J.E.F. Frost, D.G. Hasko, D.C. Peacock, D.A. Ritchie and G.A.C. Jones, J. Phys. C21, L887 (1988)
D.A. Wharam, M. Pepper, H. Ahmed, J.E.F. Frost, D.G. Hasko, D.C. Peacock, D.A. Ritchie and G.A.C. Jones, J. Phys. C21, 209 (1988).
B.J. van Wees, A. van Houten, C.W.J. Beenakker, J.G. Williamson, L.P. Kouwenhoven and D. van der Marel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 60; 848 (1988).
R. Doll and M. Nabauer, Phys. Rev. Letts. 7, 51 (1961).
B.S. Deaver and W.M. Fairbank, Phys. Rev. Letts. 7, 43 (1961).
F. London, “Superfluids, Vol.1., Macroscopic Theory of Superconductivity” (Dover, New York, 1961).
A. Widom and T.D. Clark, Phys. Letts. 90A, 280 (1982).
B.D. Josephson, Phys. Letts. 1, 251 (1962).
T.D. Clark, “Superconductivity” in “Solid State Science, Past, Present and Predicted”, eds. D.L. Weaire and C.G. Windsor (Adam Hilger, Bristol, 1987).
A.J. Leggett, Proc. 1983 NATO ASI on Percolation, Localisation and Superconductivity (Pergamon, 1984); see also “Macroscopic Quantum Objects” in “Quantum Implications”, eds. B.J. Hiley and F.D. Peat (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1987).
C.D. Tesche, “SQUID’85, Superconducting Quantum Interference Devices and their Applications”, Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. on Superconducting Quantum Devices, eds. H.D. Hahlbohm and H. Liibbig (de Gruyter, Berlin, 1985), p. 355.
A. Barone and G. Paterno, “Physics and Applications of the Josephson Effect”, Chapters 12 and 13 (Wiley-Interscience, Chichester, 1982).
H Prance, T.P. Spiller, J.E. Mutton, R.J. Prance, T.D. Clark and R. Nest, Phys. Letts. 115A. 125 (1986); see also T.P. Spiller, D.A. Poulton, T.D. Clark, R.J. Prance and H. Prance, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B5, 1437 (1991).
T.P. Spiller, T.D. Clark, R.J. Prance, H. Prance and D.A. Poulton, II Nuovo Cimento 105B, 749 (1990).
R.J. Prance, T.P. Spiller, H. Prance, T.D. Clark, J Ralph, A. Clip**dale, Y. Srivastava and A. Widom, Il Nuovo Cimento, 106B, 431 (1991); see also, T.P. Spiller, T.D. Clark, R.J. Prance, H. Prance and D.A. Poulton, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B4, 1423 (1990).
R.J. Prance, J.E. Mutton, H. Prance, T.D. Clark, A. Widom and G. Megaloudis, Helv. Phys. Acta, 56, 789 (1983).
T.P. Spiller, T.D. Clark, R.J. Prance, H. Prance, A. Widom and G. Magaloudis, Helv. Phys. Acta, 56, 789 (1983).
T.P. Spiller, T.D. Clark, R.J. Prance and A. Widom, “Quantum Phenomena in Circuits at Low Temperature”, to be published in Prog. Low Temp. Phys., October 1991 (North Holland, Amsterdam, 1991).
R.J. Prance, T.D. Clark, J.E. Mutton, H. Prance, T.P. Spiller and R. Nest, Phys. Letts. 107A, 133 (1985).
H. Prance, R.J. Prance, J.E. Mutton, T.D. Clark, T.P. Spiller and R. Nest, Phys. Letts. 111A, 199 (1985).
T.D. Clark, T.P. Spiller, D.A. Poulton, R.J. Prance and H. Prance, J. Low Temp. Phys. 78, 315 (1990).
J.S. Bell, Physics 1, 195 (1964).
A. Aspect, P. Grangier, G. Roger, Phys. Rev. Letts. 49, 91 (1982).
I. Percival, “Quantum Measurement Theory and Experiment”, op. cit. reference 3.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1992 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clark, T.D., Spiller, T.P., Prance, R.J., Prance, H., Ralph, J., Clip**dale, A. (1992). Macroscopic Quantum Objects and their Interaction with External Environments. In: Cvitanović, P., Percival, I., Wirzba, A. (eds) Quantum Chaos — Quantum Measurement. NATO ASI Series, vol 358. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7979-7_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-015-7979-7_16
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-90-481-4120-3
Online ISBN: 978-94-015-7979-7
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive