Quantum sensing, the use of quantum systems to perform precision measurements, attracts enormous interest as an potential application of engineered quantum systems being developed. According to this review article, there are three classes of quantum sensing:
1. Sensing based on systems with quantized energy levels such as superconducting qubits, including SQUID magnetometers (already commercialized).
2. Sensing based on quantum coherence or wave-like properties, including noise suppression using squeezing (e.g. in gravitational wave detectors) and macroscopic quantum states of atoms for precision gravimetry and inertial navigation (under development / being commercialized).
3. Entanglement-enhanced sensing to achieve precision beyond what is attainable classically (research in progress).
It is believed that only entanglement-enhanced sensing makes use of the full power of quantum mechanics (i.e. many-body entangled states intractable for classical computers).
The growing availability of large controlled quantum systems has led to huge interest in entanglement-enhanced sensing schemes, with many publications in high impact journals, but not everyone is convinced.
Critiques of recent high-profile experiments on entanglement-enhanced sensing published in Nature and Nature Physics have been posted to arXiv: arXiv:2208:14816, arXiv:2301.04396, and (today) arXiv:2302.00733. The first is a particularly interesting read, since it has been updated to include correspondence with the paper authors and Nature Physics editors, who declined to publish it.
I do not work in this field. I do not have the expertise to judge whether the criticism is valid or not. But it seems to me that the comments come from a knowledgeable expert, are written in a scientific style, and are of a reviewable standard. Moreover, the claims in the critiqued articles (unprecedented sensitivity at measuring some quantity) are quantitative, and can thus be unambiguously proved or disproved. Thus, it should be concerning that while one of the articles claiming entanglement-enhanced sensitivity has already been cited 30 times according to Google Scholar, the criticism seems to be ignored - not cited, not responded to, not even upvoted on scirate.
Several years ago there was a similar controversy in photonics, with many researchers racing to be the first to claim to demonstrate lasing in a variety of exotic materials. In response to this, Nature Photonics introduced a "laser checklist" to ensure that all submissions reporting claims of lasing provide a standardized set of measurements and experimental details which can be scrutinized and easily compared between different platforms and research groups. Perhaps something similar can be done for entanglement-enhanced sensing papers?
No comments:
Post a Comment