Bringing Quantum Mechanics To Life: From Schrödinger's Cat To Schrödinger's Microbe
Bringing Quantum Mechanics To Life: From Schrödinger's Cat To Schrödinger's Microbe
net/publication/312104254
CITATIONS READS
25 392
2 authors, including:
Zhang-qi Yin
Beijing Institute of Technology
135 PUBLICATIONS 4,269 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Zhang-qi Yin on 22 December 2021.
a
Center for Quantum Information, Institute for Interdisciplinary Information Sciences, Tsinghua
University, Beijing 100084, China; b Department of Physics and Astronomy and School of Electrical and
Computer Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA; c Purdue Quantum Center and
Birck Nanotechnology Center, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
(August 2016)
The question whether quantum mechanics is complete and the nature of the transition between quan-
tum mechanics and classical mechanics have intrigued physicists for decades. There have been many
experimental breakthroughs in creating larger and larger quantum superposition and entangled states
since Erwin Schrödinger proposed his famous thought experiment of putting a cat in a superposition of
both alive and dead states in 1935. Remarkably, recent developments in quantum optomechanics and
electromechanics may lead to the realization of quantum superposition of living microbes soon. Recent
evidence also suggests that quantum coherence may play an important role in several biological pro-
cesses. In this review, we first give a brief introduction to basic concepts in quantum mechanics and the
Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment. We then review developments in creating quantum superposition
and entangled states and the realization of quantum teleportation. Non-trivial quantum effects in pho-
tosynthetic light harvesting and avian magnetoreception are also discussed. At last, we review recent
proposals to realize quantum superposition, entanglement and state teleportation of microorganisms,
such as viruses and bacteria.
1. Introduction
At the beginning of the 20th century, quantum theory was invented in order to explain puzzling
phenomena related to the black body radiation and atomic emission spectra, which troubled physi-
cists at that time. After Max Planck introduced the concept of energy quantization to explain the
spectrum of the black body radiation in 1901 [1], Albert Einstein suggested the existence of light
quanta (photon) to explain the photoelectric effect [2]. There had been a long debate on whether
light was a wave or a group of particles since the age of Isaac Newton. Einstein’s concept of photon
provided the quintessential example of wave-particle duality, which was later generalized to all
matter by Louis de Broglie in 1924. The de Broglie wavelength of a particle is λ = h/p, where
h is the Planck constant, and p is the momentum of the particle. From 1925 to 1927, quantum
mechanics was finally formulated into precise mathematical equations, including the Heisenberg
equation and the Schrödinger equation. In general, it is not possible to predict the outcome of a
single measurement determinately in quantum mechanics, unless the system is in an eigenstate of
the measurement bases.
Figure 1. Scheme of the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment proposed in 1935 [4]. A cat, a radioactive source and a bottle of
poison are sealed in a box. If an atom in the radioactive source decays, it would trigger a device to release the poison to kill the
cat. Thus the living state of the cat is entangled with the decay state of an atom. At certain time, the atom is in superposition
of decay or not decay state, so the cat is simultaneously alive and dead, which violates our common sense. If we open the box,
the superposition state of the cat will collapse to either definitely alive or definitely dead in the Copenhagen interpretation.
Figure adapted from Wikimedia [5].
Quantum mechanics has predicted many counterintuitive phenomena which are forbidden in
classical mechanics. Since the discovery of quantum mechanics, there were debates on its interpre-
tation. One of the most famous debates was between A. Einstein and N. Bohr during 1920s and
1930s. In a landmark paper [3], Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (EPR) showed that because of the
entanglement between distant particles, either the locality was broken (implied faster-than-light
correlation), or the quantum theory was incomplete. Schrödinger exchanged letters with Einstein
on the EPR article. Einstein told Schrödinger that the state of an unstable gunpowder could be
in the superposition of both exploded and unexploded states. Schrödinger further extended this
idea to living systems, such as a cat [4]. He proposed to put a living cat in a sealed chamber,
wherein a poison may kill the cat depending on the state of a radioactive atom (Fig. 1 [5]). So
the macroscopic state of the cat was entangled with the microscopic state of the radioactive atom.
After waiting for a certain time, the atom had half chance to be decayed. We can write the wave
function of the system as
1
|Ψi = √ (|aliveicat |undecayediatom + |deadicat |decayediatom ). (1)
2
Following the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, the cat would be both alive and
dead until it was observed. Nowadays, a Schrödinger’s cat state is generally referred to a quantum
superposition state of a macroscopic system that contains multiple degrees of freedom. The states
of different degrees of freedom are entangled in a cat state [6].
Schrödinger’s initial purpose of proposing this thought experiment [4] was to illustrate the ab-
surdity of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics, which remains one of the most
received interpretations today. The Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment stimulated physicists to
propose alternative interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the many-worlds interpretation
initiated by Hugh Everett [7]. Following the many-worlds interpretation, the world is split into two
worlds when the Schrödinger’s cat is observed. In one world, the cat is alive. But in the other world,
the cat is dead. Although the many-worlds interpretation tries to avoid the conflicts between quan-
tum and classical worlds, it is almost impossible to be experimentally tested. After proposing the
cat thought experiment, Schrödinger became interested in explaining biology from the perspective
of quantum physics , and wrote a book titled ‘What is life?’ in 1944 [8]. This book had a great
influence, and stimulated the enthusiasm to search for genetic molecules (such as DNA) in 1950s.
2
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
Experimental physicists have tried to realize larger and larger quantum superposition and en-
tangled states for many years. The superposition of microscopic particles, such as electrons and
atoms, are relatively easy to be generated. There were remarkable progresses in this direction in
the past two decades. In 1996, the Schrödinger’s cat state was realized with a trapped cold ion [6].
A few years later, a matter wave interferometer for C60 molecules was realized [9]. Then, the size of
macroscopic quantum systems increased rapidly with the development of quantum optomechanics
and electromechanics. In 2010, a mechanical vibration mode of a 30 µm long, 740 nm thick thin
film (“quantum drum”) was cooled to the quantum regime by a cryostat, and prepared into quan-
tum superposition states by coupling it with a superconducting qubit [10]. Since the mechanical
resonator in the quantum regime is already bigger than many microbes, quantum superposition of
an entire small organism, such as a virus or a bacterium, seems to be feasible as proposed recently
[11, 12]. With the help of a superconducting circuit, the state of a living microbe may also be
teleported to another microbe [12]. It was proposed that a microbe in a quantum coherent state
would represent a new category of cryptobiosis [13]. Meanwhile, some organisms seem to be able
to harness quantum coherence in biological processes, such as photosynthetic light harvesting and
avian magnetoreception, to gain a biological advantage [14, 15].
In this review, we will briefly summarize experimental and theoretical progresses in realizing
Schrödinger’s cat states, and quantum phenomena in biological systems. In Section 2, basic con-
cepts in quantum physics and quantum information, Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment and
relating proposals are introduced. In Section 3, we discuss experimental progresses in quantum
superposition and entanglement. We first review how to realize quantum superposition and entan-
glement in microscopic systems, from single atoms to complex molecules. Then we discuss recent
experiments of generating quantum superposition and entanglement in optomechanical and elec-
tomechanical systems. In Section 4, we discuss how to realize quantum teleportation with photons,
trapped ions, and solid state systems. In Section 5, we review several biological processes such
as photosynthesis and avian magnetoreception, in which quantum coherence may play an impor-
tant role. In Section 6 and 7, we discuss two proposals that aim to realize quantum superposition
with living microorganisms. The scheme to teleport the internal state of a microorganism is also
reviewed.
2. Quantum phenomena
In this section, we first introduce basic concepts and terminologies in quantum mechanics and
quantum information science. We then introduce the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment and
several related thought experiments.
3
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
Source
Source
Figure 2. Different expectations of the Young’s double-slit experiment with atoms in classical mechanics and quantum me-
chanics. (a) In classical mechanics, each atom has a deterministic trajectory. Only atoms go through one of the slits can reach
the screen. We will see two stripes of atoms on the screen because of the two open slits on the blocking plate. (b) In quantum
mechanics, an atom can exhibit wave behaviors. It can go through both the ‘up’ and ‘down’ slits at the same time. We will see
an interference pattern of atoms on the screen.
The ‘up’ and ‘down’ parts of the wavefunction expand, overlap, and finally form an interference
pattern on the screen (Fig. 2(b)). Traditionally, the superposition principle was only used for
microscopic particles, such as electrons, atoms and molecules. Recent experiments showed that it
can also be applied for macroscopic systems, such as micro-mechanical resonators [10].
By applying the superposition principle mathematically, a quantum bit (qubit), a fundamental
concept in quantum information science, can be defined. Just like a classical bit has a state either
0 or 1, a qubit can be in state |0i or |1i. Unlike the classical bit, a qubit can also be in the state
which is an arbitrary superposition of |0i and |1i. After measurement, the qubit could be either in
|0i state with probability |α|2 , or in |1i state with probability |β|2 . The complex numbers α and β
must fulfill the normalization condition |α|2 + |β|2 = 1. Generally speaking, a qubit state is a unit
vector in a two-dimensional vector space.
Based on the superposition principle, entanglement was introduced and discussed by Einstein,
Podolsky, and Rosen in 1935 [3]. They found that two particles could be prepared in a special state
that cannot be described by two separated individual particle states, no matter how far the particles
were separated. In other words, these two particles seemly correlate with “spooky action at a
distance” [16]. The debates on the EPR paradox led John Bell to define an inequality to distinguish
a theory with local hidden variables from the quantum mechanics [17]. Experimental tests of the
Bell inequality have continued for more than 40 years, in order to close all known loopholes. In
2015, three experiments, which were performed with nitrogen-vacancy centers and single photons
systems, closed all known loopholes and verified the Bell inequality. They excluded local hidden
variable theories [18–20] and proved the faster-than-light correlation in quantum entanglement
experimentally.
Before defining an entangled state, we should first introduce the concept of separable states.
4
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
Let’s focus on two qubits A and B, whose Hilbert spaces are HA and HB . For the whole system
that includes two qubits, the Hilbert space is HA ⊗ HB . If two qubis are in pure states |ψA i =
αA |0iA + βA |1iA and |ψB i = αB |0iB + βB |1iB , the system of the composite system is |ψiAB =
|ψA i ⊗ |ψB i = (αA |0iA + βA |1iA ) ⊗ (αB |0iB + βB |1iB ), which is a separable state. However, the
most general states of the composite system is
1
X
|ψiAB = ci,j |iiA ⊗ |jiB , (3)
i,j=0
which cannot always be represented in the form of product states. For a state that is inseparable,
we call it an entangled state.
Let’s take a Bell state √12 (|0iA |1iB + |1iA |0iB ) as an example of entangled states. The reduced
density matrix for either A or B is totally mixed. Let an observer Alice measure the system A, and
observer Bob measure the system B on the computational bases |0i and |1i. Both Alice and Bob
will get random outcomes 0 or 1. If we combine their outcomes together, however, we will find that
these outcomes are totally correlated. When Alice gets the outcome 0, Bob must get the outcome
1, and vice versa. √Unlike classical bits, we can also measure the qubits on the superposition basis
|±i = (|0i ± |1i)/ 2. The outcomes between A and B are also totally correlated, no matter how
large the separation between the two qubits. Therefore, the entangled states can only be described
for the whole system, other than the individual subsystems.
As the speed of correction in quantum entanglement is much faster than the light speed, can it
be used for faster-than-light communication? Unfortunately, the answer is no. The next question is,
can we use this correlation as a resource in communication? The answer is yes. In 1993, quantum
teleportation was proposed [21]. In quantum teleportation, quantum entanglement is used as a
resource for transferring an unknown quantum state from one location to another without physically
moving the particles that the state is stored. The quantum teleportation also requires the assistance
of classical communication. Therefore, the speed of information transmission cannot be faster
than the speed of light in quantum teleportation. We will discuss more details of the quantum
teleportation protocol in Section 4.1.
5
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
wavefunction collapse. When a measurement is performed, all the different outcomes are obtained,
and each outcome is in a different world. When we open the chamber and observe the Schrödinger’s
cat, the universe will split into two different ones. The alive and dead cats will be in different
universes. Both universes are real in the many-worlds interpretation.
An interesting extension of the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment is to add an observer in
the chamber to observe the cat’s state. In this way, the quantum mechanics is applied to ourselves,
especially our consciousness, and leads to even stranger conclusions [22–24]. The key point is that
we can communicate with the observer inside the chamber before we open it. We may ask the
observer whether the cat is in a definite state (can be dead or alive). If the observer answers “Yes”,
we may undo the experiment since the evolution is reversible in quantum mechanics. We should
note that the answer of the observer does not collapse the wavefunction to a definite “dead” or
“alive” state as we still do not know whether the cat is dead or alive from the answer. If the cat is
dead, we may make it alive again by reversing the quantum process. So the poison is back into the
bottle, the atom does not decay, and the observer does not remember seeing a dead cat. However,
for the observer inside the chamber, his observation should make the cat’s wave function collapse.
His answer is the proof of it. In this way, a contradiction appears.
Doing such experiments with a cat is impossible right now. Therefore, people started to realize
quantum superposition using relatively small objects. Up to now, single atoms, molecules with
many atoms, and even micrometer-scale mechanical resonators have been prepared into quantum
superposition states. Some of them were even generated into entangled states. We will summarize
these progresses in Section 3. Schemes to realize quantum superposition of living microorganisms,
such as viruses and bacteria, have been proposed [11, 12]. Ref. [12] also discussed how to teleport
the internal electron spin state of a living bacterium to the internal electron spin state of another
remote bacterium. In Section 6 and 7, we will review these proposals and related experimental
progresses.
In this section, we will first discuss the experimental developments in superposition and entangle-
ment of atoms and molecules. Then we will discuss quantum behaviors of larger objects, such as
optomechanical systems.
6
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
(a) A double-slit interferometer for atoms [27]. The (b) Measured atomic density profile at the de-
atoms can go through two different pathes from the tector plane [27]. It was monitored with a 8 µm
source to the detector. The distance between the grating slit. The dashed line is the detection
source and the detector is 128 cm. background.
Figure 3. Young’s double-slit experiment with helium atoms. Reprinted with permission from [27].
Copyright (1991) by the American Physical Society.
1-µm-wide slits, separated by 8 µm. The density profile of atoms was detected in a plane located
another L0 = 64 cm behind the double slit. We expect a modulated intensity distribution with
a periodicity dx = L0 λdB /d and the envelop with a full width of 2L0 λdB /s2 , where d and s2 are
the distance between the slits and the width of the double slits, respectively. Fig. 3(b) shows the
experimental results when the wavelength is λdB = 1.03 Å. The average distance between two
maximum is 7.7 ± 0.5 µm, which agrees with the theoretical prediction.
It is more challenging to realize matter wave interferometers for molecules [28]. The first exper-
imental paper in this direction was published in 1999 by Zeilinger’s group [9], who realized the
double-slit interference experiment using C60 molecules. As the mass of a C60 molecule is much
larger than that of a helium atom, the de Broglie wavelength of the C60 molecular beam is much
smaller. It is only 5 pm for a C60 molecule moves at 100 m/s . In this experiment, the slit separation
was reduced to 100 nm, which was much smaller than the slit separation in the atomic experiment.
The interference fringes were separated around 50 µm at 1 m behind the grating. Later, similar
experiments were realized for larger molecules, such as C70 [29], and tetraphenylporphyrin (TPP)
[30]. Comparing to atoms, these complex molecules have much larger masses. Thus they can be
used to test the quantum superposition principle and study decoherence theories in much larger
mass regime.
|x1 i| ↑i + |x2 i| ↓i
Ψ= √ , (4)
2
7
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
Figure 4. Evolution of the spatial atomic wave packet entangled with the internal hyperfine states | ↓i and | ↑i. The area of
the wave packets corresponds to the probability of the atom at the given internal state. (A) The ion is initially at the motional
quantum ground state and internal state | ↓i. (B) The wave function is split by a π/2 pulse on the internal level. (C) The | ↑i
wave packet is excited to a coherent state |α = 3i with force F. (D) The ↓i and | ↑i wave packets are exchanged by a π-pulse.
(E) The | ↑i wave packet is driven to a coherent state |α = −3i with force -F. This state corresponds to a Schrödinger’s cat
state. (F) The | ↓i and | ↑i wave packets are combined by a π/2 pulse on the carrier for detection. Figure adapted from [6].
Reprinted with permission from AAAS.
where coherent states |x1 i = |αe−iφ/2 i and |x2 i = |αeiφ/2 i denote classical-like spatial wave packet
states of the trapped ion, | ↓i and ↑i represent the internal hyperfine states of the trapped 9 Be+
ion [6]. The position separation of |x1 i and |x2 i was around 80 nm, which was larger than both
the size of the individual wave packets (7 nm) and the size of the atom (1 Å). The mean number
of vibrational quanta was hni = α2 . In order to verify the superposition of the Schrödinger’s cat
state, the coherent wave packets were recombined in the step (F) to the following state
with
The populations of | ↓i and | ↑i depended on the motional phase difference φ between the two
wave packets. Thus the interference between two wave packets could be measured by detecting the
probability that the ion was in | ↓i (or | ↑i ) internal state.
The key features of this experiment [6] include: (i) The motion of the trapped ion was controlled
with well defined amplitude and phase; (ii) the spatial spreading of individual wave packets of the
atomic motion is small compared to the separation between the two wave packets. As we will see,
the idea of this experiment has been adopted in quantum optomechanics and electromechanics.
8
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
1.0
0.8
!ph
0.6
Pe
0.4
0.2
0.0
60 μm 0 10 20 30 40
Interaction time, ! (ns)
(a) Scanning electron micro- (b) Qubit excited-state probability as a function
graph of a suspended film bulk of interaction time, showing the quantum state
dilatational resonator at 6 GHz. exchange between the superconducting qubit and
the mechanical resonator.
In 2010, quantum ground state cooling of a macroscopic mechanical resonator was realized by
conventional cryogenic refrigeration [10]. As shown in Figure 5a, a micromechanical resonator with
a resonant frequency at 6.1 GHz and a length of about 30 µm was cooled to 25 mK with cryogenic
refrigeration. The suspended thin film resonator consisted 150 nm SiO2 , 130 nm Al, 330 nm AlN
and 130 nm Al. This 6.1 GHz mode corresponded to the dilatational vibration (the change of the
thickness) of the thin film structure. As we know, the ground state of this mechanical mode can
be reached once its temperature is bellow 0.1 K. The AlN film in the structure is piezoelectric.
Therefore, the oscillation of the resonator generated a electric signal, and vice versa. In order to
verify the ground state cooling of the resonator, quantum-limited measurement of the resonator
was performed by a superconducting qubit, which was connected to the resonator through a circuit.
The mean thermal phonon number was estimated to be hnm i < 0.07. As shown in Figure 5b, the
qubit was first excited, and then swapped its state with the mechanical resonator. The qubit was
in its excited state at the maximum point in Fig. 5b. The minimum points corresponded to the
situation when the qubit excitation was transferred to the resonator. If the qubit was prepared to
be a superposition state initially, the mechanical resonator would also be in a superposition state
by swapping their states. The fitted relaxation time for this mechanical resonator was 6.1 ns, in
good agreement with its measured mechanical quality factor of Q = 260.
In 2011, sideband cooling of a mechanical resonator to the quantum regime was achieved in
both electromechanical and optomechanical systems [31, 32]. In the electromechanical experiment
[31], a micro-mechanical membrane, with a resonant frequency at 10 MHz and Q = 3.3 × 105
was embedded into a superconducting microwave resonator. This 10 MHz mode corresponded to
the center-of-mass vibration of the membrane. The motion of mechanical resonator would shift
the frequency of the microwave resonator. By placing the system in a cryogenic refrigerator at
15 mK and driving the red (low frequency) sideband of the microwave resonator, the mechanical
resonator at 10 MHz was cooled to the quantum regime with a mean thermal phonon number
0.34 ± 0.05. The 100 nm-thick aluminum membrane vibrated just like the membrane of a drum.
Thus we may consider it as a “quantum drum”. Recently, the same group cooled the mechanical
mode to a mean thermal phonon number around 0.1 and prepared the mechanical mode to squeezed
states by quantum non-demolition measurements [33]. The quantum superposition of a mechanical
resonator has been prepared, and the matter wave interference pattern has been observed in this
system.
9
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
In scientific fictions, teleportation describes the hypothetic transfer of an object between two distant
locations without physically moving it along a path. In 1970s, the television series Star Trek brought
the concept of teleportation to living rooms. The name of quantum teleportation was inspired by
teleportation. However, in quantum teleportation, we can only teleport information, rather than
a physical object [21]. In other words, quantum teleportation is a form of communication. In
this section, we will introduce the basic quantum teleportation protocol. Then we will discuss
experimental realizations of quantum teleportation in various systems, such as photons, trapped
ions (atoms), and circuit QED.
1
|Ψ−
2,3 i = √ (|0i2 |1i3 − |1i2 |0i3 ). (7)
2
Initially, Alice has the qubit |φ1 i. In order to teleport the qubit, one particle (2) of the EPR pair is
given to Alice, and the other particle (3) is sent to Bob. Then Alice performs a Bell measurement
on both particles 1 and 2. The bases of the measurement are
1
|Ψ±
12 i = √ (|0i1 |1i2 ± |1i1 |0i2 ),
2
(8)
1
|Φ±
12 i = √ (|0i1 |0i2 ± |1i1 |1i2 ).
2
α β
|Ψ123 i = √ (|0i1 |0i2 |1i3 − |0i1 |1i2 |0i3 ) + √ (|1i1 |0i2 |1i3 − |1i1 |1i2 |0i3 ) (9)
2 2
We can rewrite this three-particle state (Eq. (9)) in the Bell bases (Eq. (8)):
1 − −
Ψ12 (−α|0i3 − β|1i3 ) + Ψ+ +
|Ψ123 i = 12 (−α|0i3 + β|1i3 ) + Φ12 (β|0i3 + α|1i3 ) + Φ12 (−β|0i3 + α|1i3 )
2
(10)
Each of the four measurement outcomes in the Bell bases has probability 25%. The Bell measure-
ment will project the particle 3 to one of the four different states, according to the measurement
outcome. The four states are
1 2 −1 0 3 0 1 4 0 −1
|φ3 i = −|φ1 i, |φ3 i = |φ1 i, |φ3 i = |φ1 i, |φ3 i = |φ1 i. (11)
0 1 1 0 1 0
10
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
Figure 6. Principle of quantum teleportation. Alice has a quantum system (qubit 1) in an initial state |φ1 i, which she wants
to transfer to Bob. An EPR source produces a pair of entangled photons 2 and 3, and sends photon 2 to Alice, photon 3
to Bob. Then Alice performs a joint Bell measurement on the initial qubit 1 and the ancillary photon 2. This measurement
projects them to one of four different entangled states. She then sends the outcome to Bob though classical channel. Based on
the classical information, Bob can perform a local operation on photon 3 and reproduce the initial state |φ1 i. Bob does not
need to know the state |φ1 i in order to reproduce it. Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Nature [34],
copyright (1997).
These states are simply related to the original qubit state |φ1 i that Alice has. Once Alice tells Bob
her measurement outcome by classical communication, Bob can apply a local operation on the
particle 3 to restore the qubit 1. However, after the Bell measurement, the information in particle
1 is erased. As the operations in teleportaion are linear, the protocol can be extended to multiple
qubits.
11
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
Figure 7. Quantum teleportation from ion 1 to 3. Ions 2 and 3 are initially prepared to a Bell state. The state to be teleported
is encoded in ion 1 by the operation Ux . In order to realize Bell measurement between ion 1 and 2, we need to perform a
controlled-Z gate followed by a π/2 rotation and a state detection on ion 1 and ion 2. Based on the measurement results
(classical information) of both ions 1 and 2, the state of ion 1 prepared by the operation Ux could be reconstructed in ion
3. Double lines in the figure represent the classical information channels. Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers
Ltd: Nature [40], copyright (2004).
experiment. In other word, the first teleportation experiment was based on post-selection. In 1998,
unconditional quantum teleportation was proposed and realized by using squeezed-state entangle-
ment [35, 36]. Teleporting two degrees of freedom (spin and orbital angular momentum) of a single
photon was demonstrated in 2015 [37]. The teleportation distance has also been greatly increased in
the last two decades. The longest distance of teleportation is more than 100 km right now [38, 39].
Comparing to photonic qubits, atomic or solid state qubits can be stored for longer times. If we
can realize quantum teleportation with atomic or solid state qubits, the transferred information
will be available after the teleportation for further experiments. Besides, the teleportation in these
systems could be deterministic, without post selection. The deterministic quantum teleportation
between ions was reported by two groups in 2004, by using 9 Be+ [41] or 40 Ca+ [40] ions. A scheme
to teleport the quantum state of ion 1 to ion 3 is shown in Fig. 7. Unlike photons, we cannot use
two-particle interferometry to accomplish the Bell measurement because it is difficult to have a
beam splitter for atomic and solid state qubits. Fortunately, the Bell measurement can also be
realized by performing controlled quantum logic gates and measurements on the qubits [42].
The similar method was later adopted in solid state systems, such as superconducting circuits
[43], nitrogen-vacancy (NV) centers in diamond [44], and etc. In order to increase the teleportation
distance between qubits, photon interference and post-selection methods were used for preparing
entanglement between distant trapped ion or solid state qubits [44, 45]. The entanglement distribu-
tion between two NV centers qubits separated by 1.3 kilometer has been achieved[18]. Loophole-free
Bell test has also been performed in this setup [18]. With the goal to realize quantum internet in
future, teleportation between different types of qubits has been studied. Quantum teleportation
between light and atomic ensemble [46], between light and solid state quantum memory [47], and
between photon and phonon [48] have been demonstrated.
As discussed in previous sections, quantum coherence and entanglement have been observed in var-
ious systems, such as trapped ions, mechanical resonators, superconducting circuits, and etc. They
are crucial resources for quantum information processing. It is natural to ask whether quantum
physics plays a nontrivial role in biology [14, 15]. It is widely known that quantum mechanics is the
basic rule of chemical processes. However, it is not clear what is the role of quantum mechanics in
biological (physiological) process. In this section, we will review recent progresses in this direction.
It has been found that biological systems can perform certain tasks (such as photosynthesis) more
efficiently, or realize a function (such as magnetoreception in some avian species [14]) that cannot
be done classically by harnessing quantum coherence and entanglement.
12
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
5.1. Photosynthesis
Photosynthesis is one of the most important biological processes. It provides energy to almost
all life on the Earth. In a typical photosynthetic process as shown in Fig. 8, a photon is first
absorbed by a light-harvesting antenna and creates an exciton. The exciton is then transferred to a
reaction center where the excitation energy is transformed into a more stable chemical energy. The
remarkable experimental observation is that almost all of photon energy absorbed by the antenna
is transferred to the reaction center. The lifetime of electronic excitation is only on the order of
1 ns. Photosynthesis usually performs at temperatures above 273 K. Therefore, we may treat the
exciton transfer as a classical random walk, e.g. the Förster model. In this model, the exciton
transfer between different sites is incoherent. The superposition or coherence effects are neglected.
In 2007, G. S. Engel et al. reported that quantum coherence exists in both the energy transfer
in the Fenna-Matthews-Olson (FMO) complex [49] and the reaction center in photosynthesis [50].
FMO is a specialized structure through which the excitation energy is transferred to the reaction
center. The experiment was initially performed at a cryogenic temperature 77 K. Later experiments
shown that the coherence in excitation transfer exists even near room temperature [51–53], as shown
in Fig 8. One may ask why quantum coherence exists during the exciton transfer, and what is the
role of it. The simple answer is to increase the energy transfer efficiency. A high transfer efficiency
may be very important for life species that live in a weak light environment, e.g., green sulphur
bacteria [51].
Numerous theoretical models have been proposed to explain how and why excitation energy
transfer is more efficient by using quantum coherence. For example, some models treat the en-
vironment as a Markovian thermal bath [54, 55]. Each site in the FMO complex interacts with
an independent environmental bath. It was found that by combining the coherence of excitation
transport and the thermal noise, the excitation may easily escape a local potential minima of the
FMO and move to the reaction center. There were also works on studying the effects of the molec-
ular geometric structure on the efficiency of energy transport [56]. Ref. [57, 58] studied a dimer
structure of light-harvesting complex 2 (LH2), and found that both dimerization and dark states
could increase the energy transfer efficiency.
Recent analysis showed that the quantum enhancement of the transport efficiency might be only a
few percent [59]. Thus it is still not clear whether quantum coherence is essential for photosynthesis.
Some papers proposed classical models that can also have quantum-like oscillation behaviors [60].
More studies are needed to clarify the role of quantum coherence in photosynthesis [61, 62].
13
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
a
Electron
spins European Robin
Retina
B
Nuclear
spin
b c d
¬ ¬ Singlet
κ products
Singlet
Triplets
T+ T¬
Nuclear spin
T0
Figure 9. The avian quantum compass.(a) A schematic of the RP mechanism for magnetoreception which may explain the
navigation of European robins. RP mechanism is thought to happen in proteins named cryptochromes in the retina. It contains
three main steps. First, light-induced electron transferred from one radial-pair-forming molecule to an acceptor molecule creates
a radical pair. (b,c), Second, the singlet and triplet states convert between each other, which is determined by the external
and internal magnetic couplings. (d) Third, the singlet and triplet pairs recombine into singlet or triplet products, which could
be detected through biological ways. Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Nature Physics [14], copyright
(2013).
14
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
relative weight of the singlet and triplet products, the angle of the external magnetic field can be
determined. In this way, a magnetic compass is formed in a bird’s eye.
Spin singlet and triplet states are highly entangled states, and are equivalent to Bell states. There
are many studies on how quantum coherence and entanglement will enhance the performance of
the RP mechanism. By using density-matrix equation and quantum measurement theory, I. K.
Kominis explained the RP mechanism by quantum zeno effects [68]. J. Cai et al. studied how
quantum control could enhance or reduce the performance of compass in the RP mechanism, and
studied the role of entanglement in this mechanism [69]. In the theoretical investigation by E.
Gauger et al. [70], it was found that superposition and entanglement could be maintained in this
system for tens of microseconds in a “warm and wet” biological environment. Later, C. Y. Cai et
al found that the sensitivity of the chemical compass based on the RP mechanism could be greatly
enhanced by quantum criticality of the environment [71] .
There were many experiments that investigated the sensitivity of the RP mechanism in detecting
an external magnetic field. In most experiments [14, 72], the requirements of high magnetic strength
sensitivity (around 50 µT) and high angular sensitivity for avian magnetoreception cannot be
fulfilled at the same time. Recently, H. G. Hiscock et al. studied a modified RP model that involved
multinuclear radical pairs [73]. They found that the output contained a very sharp feature, which
could greatly increase the angular sensitivity. The magnetic strength used in this experiment was
also comparable to that of the Earth.
The quantum coherence in biological processes mentioned in the former section is still at the molec-
ular scale. Can we create quantum superposition of an entire organism as proposed by Schrödinger
in 1935? Can we entangle a macroscopic state of an entire living organism to a microscopic state
of an atom or an electron to make a close analog of the Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment? Re-
markably, these long-sought goals in quantum mechanics may be realizable with the state-of-the-art
technologies [11, 12].
In 2009, O. Romero-Isart et al. proposed to optically levitate a virus in vacuum inside an optical
cavity to create quantum superposition states of a virus (Fig. 10) [11]. A virus levitated in high
vacuum will be well isolated from the environment. By trapping it in an optical cavity, its motion
Figure 10. An optically levitated microorganism, such as a virus, inside a high-finesse optical cavity in vacuum for creating
quantum superposition states. Figure adapted from Ref. [11]
15
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
can be coupled to the photon in the cavity, which can be used to cool its center-of-mass (CoM)
motion to the quantum ground state and create superposition states (Fig. 10). While Schrödinger’s
cat proposal was a pure thought experiment, this intriguing proposal of a levitated virus increased
our hope to create quantum superposition of a living organism in a laboratory. Romero-Isart et
al. pointed out that this would be possible because (i) living microorganisms have been optically
trapped in liquids; (ii) some microorganisms can survive in a vacuum environment; (iii) the size of
viruses and some other smallest microorganisms is comparable to the laser wavelength; (iv) some
microorganisms are transparent. Romero-Isart et al. proposed that a good example of virus for
creating a quantum superposition state will be a tobacco mosaic virus which has a rod-like shape
about 50 nm wide and 1 µm long [11]. Because of its shape, a tobacco mosaic virus will also be a
good candidate to study rotational and torsional cooling. Currently, the main difficulty to realize
this proposal is to optically levitate a virus in high vacuum without significant heating due to light
absorption. The optical absorption coefficients of organisms are typically much larger than that of
pure silica optical fibers [74].
While optical levitation of a living microorganism in vacuum has not been realized yet, there have
been many experimental progresses in levitated optomechanics with inorganic dielectric particles
[75]. In 1975, A. Ashkin and J. M. Dziedzic optically levitated glass spheres and oil droplets with
diameters about 20-µm in high vacuum [76]. In 2010, Li et al. demonstrated feedback cooling of the
center-of-mass motion of an optically trapped silica microsphere from room temperature to about
1.5 mK in high vacuum [77]. Parametric cooling [78] and cavity cooling [79–81] of pure dielectric
particles (silica and silicon) have also been demonstrated. It is expected that quantum ground state
cooing of a levitated pure dielectric particle will be realized soon.
Let us consider an optically trapped nanoparticle (or a virus) inside an optical cavity as shown
in Fig. 11(a). The angular frequency of the mechanical vibration of the nanoparticle along the
z-axis is ωm . The resonant angular frequency of the cavity without the nanoparticle is ωC0 . For a
nanoparticle much smaller than the wavelength of the laser, we can use the Rayleigh approximation.
Because of the nanoparticle, the cavity resonant frequency shifts by an amount [11]
where E(r0 ) is the electric field of the cavity mode, r is the relative dielectric constant of the
nanoparticle, and V (r) is its occupied space. Because the cavity mode is a standing wave, δωC (r)
depends on the location r of the nanoparticle in the cavity. The amplitude of δωc (r) is maximized
when the nanoparticle is at an antinode of the cavity mode, and will be 0 if the nanoparticle is at an
node of the cavity mode. Because the frequency shift depends on the position of the nanoparticle,
the vibration (phonon) of the nanoparticle is coupled to the photon in the cavity. The typical
quantum optomechanical coupling is [11]
where a†m (am ) are the creation (annihilation) phonon operators, a†c (ac ) are operators that create
√
(annihilate) a photon in the cavity, and g = nph g0 is the coupling strength. Here nph is the
number of photons in the cavity and g0 is the coupling strength between a single photon and a
single phonon.
This optomechanical interaction Hamiltonian (Eq. 13) can be used to cool a levitated nanopar-
ticle. To cool the center-of-mass motion of the levitated nanoparticle, we can choose the laser
detuning to be ∆ ≡ ωL − ωC = −ωM , where ωL is the frequency of the cooling laser, ωC is the
resonant frequency of the cavity, and ωm is the frequency of the center-of-mass motion of the
nanoparticle (Fig. 11b). By using rotating wave approximation under the condition ωM >> g, we
16
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
cooling laser
cavity
cooling laser
+
L M
-
L M
x
L C
Figure 11. (a) Scheme of cavity cooling of a levitated nanoparticle. (b) Principle of cavity cooling. To achieve cooling, the
angular frequency of laser ωL should be smaller than the resonant angular frequency of the cavity ωC . ωM is the angular
frequency of the center-of-mass motion of the levitated nanoparticle. Figure adapted from Ref. [82] (With permission of
Springer).
As shown in Fig. 11b, the motion of the nanoparticle will modulate the laser field in the cavity
and generate two sidebands, one at frequency ωL − ωM and the other at frequency ωL + ωM [82].
If the laser detuning is ∆ = −ωM , then the high-frequency sideband ωL + ωM = ωC will be on
resonant of the optical cavity and can leak out of the cavity. On the other hand, the low-frequency
sideband ωL −ωM is detuned further away from the resonant frequency of the cavity. On average, the
emitted photons will have higher energy than the photons entering to the cavity. Thus the photons
will carry away the kinetic energy from the nanoparticle. So the motion of the nanoparticle will
be cooled. To achieve ground state cooling, we need to satisfy the resolved sideband limit, i.e.
ωM > κ >> γM . Here κ is the line width of the optical cavity, and γM is the decay rate of the
mechanical oscillation of the nanoparticle.
A more interesting task is to create a quantum superposition state of a levitated nanoparticle
(or virus). An example superposition state will be |Ψ >= √12 (|0 > +|1 >), where |0 >, |1 > are the
ground and the first excited state of the center-of-mass vibration of the nanoparticle, respectively.
A method is to use a single-photon state. The interaction Hamiltonian (Eq. 14) can swap the state
of the photon in the cavity to the state of the mechanical motion of the levitated nanoparticle. If the
single photon is in a superposition state of entering or not entering to the cavity, its superposition
state will be mapped to the mechanical motion of the nanoparticle. Thus the nanoparticle will be
prepared in a superposition state. Romero-Isart et al later proposed a different method to create
superposition states with larger spatial separations by using two optical cavities [83]. In 2013, Yin
et al proposed to use electron spin-optomechanical coupling to create large spatial superposition
states of a levitated nanodiamond [84, 85]. Recently, optical trapping and electron spin control of
nanodiamonds in vacuum have been demonstrated [86–88].
17
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
In 2015, T. Li and Z.-Q. Yin proposed to create quantum superposition and entangled states of
a living microorganism by putting a small bacterium or a virus on top of an electromechanical
oscillator, such as a membrane embedded in a superconducting microwave resonant circuit (Fig.
12) [12]. By using an electromechanical oscillator instead of optical levitation in vacuum, this
approach avoids the heating due to laser absorption. Electromechanical oscillators imbedded in su-
perconducting circuits have been cooled to quantum ground state by several groups[10, 31, 89–94].
Advanced control techniques of superconducting circuits, including quantum teleportation with
superconducting circuits, have also been demonstrated [43]. In addition, most microorganisms can
survive in the cryogenic environment, which is required to use the superconducting circuits. Mi-
croorganisms will be frozen in a cryogenic environment. But they can be still living and become
active after thawing [95]. Cryopreservation is a standard technology for preserving biological sam-
ples for long periods and is used clinically worldwide [95]. Most microorganisms can be preserved
for several years in cryogenic environments without losing vitality [96]. Even some organs can be
preserved at cryogenic temperatures [97]. At millikelvin temperatures, the sublimation speed of
water ice is negligible. It is only about 0.06 nm per hour at 128 K [98], and decreases further
when the temperature decreases. So a microorganism can be exposed to ultrahigh vacuum without
sublimation at millikelvin temperatures.
In the following subsections, we will first review the scheme to create quantum superposition
states of the center-of-mass motion of a microorganism on an electromechanical oscillator. We will
then discuss how to create quantum entanglement between the internal state and the center-of-
mass motion of a microorganism. At the end, we will discuss how to teleport the quantum state
(center-of-mass motion or internal state) of a microorganism to another microorganism.
Microorganism
Membrane
Figure 12. Schrödinger’s microbe. (a) Scheme to create quantum superposition states of a microorganism by putting it on top
of an electromechanical membrane coupled to a superconducting LC circuit. (b) A bacterium with a smooth surface. (c) A
bacterium with pili on its surface. Figure adapted from Ref. [12].
18
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
Figure 13. An aluminum membrane cooled to the ground state. (a) A scanning electron microscope (SEM) image showing the
aluminium (grey) electromechanical circuit. A 15-µm-diameter aluminium membrane with a thickness of 100nm is suspended
50 nm above a lower electrode. The membrane’s vibration modulates the capacitance of the superconducting microwave circuit.
(b) A coherent microwave drive (left, ωd ) inductively coupled to the circuit acquires modulation sidebands (red and blue in
the plot below) owing to the thermal motion of the membrane. The upper sideband is amplified with a Josephson parametric
amplifier (filled triangle, right). Reprinted by permission from Macmillan Publishers Ltd: Nature [31], copyright (2011).
Its mechanical quality factor is about 3.3 × 105 . The mass of the membrane is 48 pg (2.9 × 1013 Da),
which is larger than those of many microorganisms. Besides ground state cooling, coherent state
transfer between the membrane and a traveling microwave field [90], and entanglement between the
motion of the membrane and a microwave field [89] have been realized. These developments provide
the toolbox for creating quantum superposition states of a small microorganism. The masses of
some common small microorganisms are listed in Table 1. From Table 1, it is clear that the mass of
the aluminium membrane used in Ref. [31] is about four orders larger than the mass of ultra-small
bacteria [99–105]. A good example of cells that are suitable for performing this experiment is a
mycoplasma bacterium. Mycoplasma bacteria are ubiquitous and their sizes are small [103]. We
can utilize techniques developed in cryo-electron microscopy to prepare the system in a cryogentic
environment[106].
As shown in Fig. 12a, a bacterium or virus can be put on top of an electromechanical membrane
oscillator. Its mass m is assumed to be much smaller than the mass of the membrane Mmem .
For simplicity, it will be better to use microorganisms with smooth surfaces (Fig. 12b), although
microorganisms with pili (hairlike structures) on their surfaces (Fig. 12c) will also work as long as
the vibration frequencies of the pili are different from the vibration frequency of the superconducting
membrane.
At millikelvin temperatures, the mechanical properties of a frozen microorganism will be similar
Table 1. Comparison of masses of some viruses and bacteria to the mass of a membrane oscillator (Mmem = 48 pg) that has
been cooled to the quantum ground state in Ref. [31]. Table adapted from Ref. [12].
19
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
to a glass particle, while its chemical properties are quite different. A frozen microorganism will
stick on the membrane due to attractive van der Waals force. The pull-off force between a 1 µm
sphere and a flat surface due to van der Waals force is on the order 100 nN [107]. This is about
107 times larger than the gravitational force on a 1 µm particle. So the microorganism will move
together with the membrane. The oscillation frequency of the membrane oscillator will change
by roughly −Ωm m/(2Mmem ), where Ωm is the intrinsic oscillation frequency of the membrane.
This small frequency shift will not significantly affect the ground state cooling of the membrane.
The change of the quality factor Q of the membrane oscillator due to a small microorganism
(m/Mmem << 1) will also be negligible. The frequencies of internal vibration modes of the main
body of a small bacterium (larger than 1 GHz for a bacterium smaller than 1 µm) are much larger
than the frequency of the center-of-mass motion of the electromechanical membrane which is about
10 MHz. Thus the internal vibration modes of the main body of a bacterium will not couple to the
center-of-mass vibration of the membrane. If the bacterium has pili on its surface (Fig. 12c) [108],
the situation will be more complex. One can avoid this problem by embedding the pili in water ice.
We assume the frequency of the center-of-mass motion of the microorganism and the membrane
together to be ωm , which is close to Ωm . The motion of the membrane alters the frequency ωc of the
superconducting LC resonator. The frequency ωc can be approximated with ωc (x) = ω0 +Gx, where
x is the displacement of membrane, and G = ∂ωc /∂x. The parametric interaction Hamiltonian
has the form HI = ~Ga† ax̂ = ~Gn̂x0 (am + a†m ), where a (am ) and a† (a†m ) are the creation
and annihilation
p operators for LC (mechanical) resonator, n̂ is the photon number operator, and
x0 = ~/2Mmem ωm is the zero point fluctuation for mechanical mode. We denote the single-
photon coupling constant g0 = Gx0 . The LC resonator can be driven strongly with frequency ωd
to enhance the effective coupling between LC resonator and mechanical oscillator. We assume that
the steady state amplitude α of the LC mode is much larger than 1. So the effective coupling
strength will increase to g = αg0 . The detuning can be freely chosen to satisfy the requirements of
different applications. For ground state cooling, we choose ∆ = −ωm . Then we get the effective
interaction Hamiltonian as [109] Heff = ~ga† am + ~gaa†m , which is basically the same as Eq. 14.
Once the mechanical mode is cooled down to the quantum regime by cavity sideband cooling
[31], we can prepare the mechanical superposition state of a bacterium by the method of quantum
state transfer between the mechanical mode and the LC√microwave mode. For example, we can
first generate the superposition state |φ0 i = (|0i + |1i)/ 2 for LC mode a with assistance of a
superconducting qubit. Here |0i and |1i are vacuum and 1 photon Fock state of the LC mode a.
After interaction time t = π/g, the mechanical mode will be in the superposition state |φ0 i.
20
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
Magne c p Microorganism
Spin
Figure 14. Scheme to couple the electron spin of a radial in a microorganism to its center-of-mass motion with a magnetic
field gradient created by a nearby ferromagnetic tip. A microwave signal iRF can be used to control the state of the electron
spin. The center-of-mass motion of the membrane is also coupled to the microwave photon in the superconducting LC circuit.
Figure adapted from Ref. [12].
center-of-mass motion of the microorganism, a magnetic field gradient is applied. Above the mi-
croorganism, there is a ferromagnetic tip mounted on a rigid cantilever, which produces a magnetic
field B with a large gradient. This scheme to couple the spin state and the center-of-mass motion
of a microorganism is similar to the scheme used in magnetic resonance force microscopy (MRFM)
[112–114]. Recently, single electron spin detection with a MRFM [112], and a MRFM at 30 mK
has been demonstrated [114].
The oscillation of membrane induces a time-varying magnetic field on electrons in the microor-
ganism. We define the single phonon induced frequency shift λ = gs µB |Gm |x0o /~, where x00 is the
zero field fluctuation of microorganism, and Gm = ∂B(~x1 )/∂~x1 . Here we assume that the magnetic
gradient is (un)parallel to both the magnetic field B(~x1 ) and the mechanical oscillation. The z axis
is defined along the direction of B(~x1 ). We apply a microwave driving with frequency ωd0 , which
is close to the electron 1’s level spacing ω1 = gµB B(~x1 ). In a microorganism, there are usually
more than one radicals. Because the magnetic field is inhomogeneous, the energy splitting between
electron spin states depends on the relative position between an electron and the ferromagnetic
tip. With the help of a large magnetic gradient, the microwave can be on resonant (or near reso-
nant) of only one electron spin [112]. So we can neglect the effects of other electron spins in the
microorganism. To make sure the electron spin is initially in the ground state at 10 mK, its energy
level spacing should be larger than 500 MHz, which is much larger than the mechanical oscillator
frequency. To achieve strong coupling, we can drive the system with a strong microwave at angular
frequency ω1 with a Rabi frequency Ω0d = ωM . Then the interaction Hamiltonian will be [12]
HI = ~λσ+ am + ~λσ− a+
m, (15)
21
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
Figure 15. Scheme to teleport the quantum state of a microorganism to another microorganism with the help of two elec-
tromechanical oscillators and superconducting circuits. Both the center-of-mass motion state and the internal state of the
microorganism can be teleported.
increase the spatial separation of the superposition state of a microorganism, one can attach the
microorganism to a magnetically levitated superconducting microsphere [115–118] instead of a fixed
membrane in future. With that method, superposition of two states separated by about 500 nm
should be feasible [115].
22
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
8. Conclusion
Acknowledgement
We thank helpful discussions with Qing Ai. Z.Q.Y. is supported by the National Natural Science
Foundation of China Grant 61435007. T.L. is supported by the National Science Foundation under
Grant No. 1555035-PHY.
References
[1] M. Planck, Über das Gesetz der Energieverteilung im Normalspektrum, Annalen der Physik 4 (1901),
pp. 553.
[2] A. Einstein. Über einen die Erzeugung und Verwandlung des Lichtes betreffenden heuristischen
Gesichtspunkt, Annalen der Physik 17 (1905), pp. 132-148.
[3] A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, N.Rosen. Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be consid-
ered complete?, Phys. Rev. 47 (1935), pp. 777.
[4] E. Schrödinger. Die gegenwärtige situation in der quantenmechanik, Naturwissenschaften 23 (1935),
pp. 807-812, pp. 823- 828, pp. 844-849.
[5] Schrödinger’s cat. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schrodingers_cat.svg
[6] C. Monroe, D. M. Meekhof, B. E. King, D. J. Wineland, A Schrödinger Cat Superposition State of an
Atom. Science 272 (1996), pp. 1131-1136.
[7] H. Everett. Relative State Formulation of Quantum Mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29 (1957), pp. 454-
462.
[8] E. Schrödinger. What is Life?: With Mind and Matter and Autobiographical Sketches, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, UN, 2012.
[9] M. Arndt, O. Nairz, J. Voss-Andreae, C. Keller, G.V. der Zouw, and A. Zeilinger, Wave-particle duality
of C60 molecules, Nature (London) 401 (1999), pp. 680.
[10] A. D. OConnell, M. Hofheinz, M. Ansmann, Radoslaw C. Bialczak, M. Lenander, Erik Lucero, M.
Neeley, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, John M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Quantum
ground state and single-phonon control of a mechanical resonator. Nature 464 (2010), pp. 697-703.
[11] O. Romero-Isart, M. L. Juan, R. Quidant, J. I. Cirac. Toward Quantum Superposition of Living
Organisms, New. J. Phys. 12 (2010), pp. 033015.
[12] T. Li, Z.-Q. Yin. Quantum superposition, entanglement, and state teleportation of a microorganism
on an electromechanical oscillator, Science Bulletin 61 (2016), pp. 163-171.
[13] J. W. Bull, A. Gordon. Schrödinger’s microbe: implications of coercing a living organism into a coherent
quantum mechanical state, Biol Philos. 30 (2015), pp. 845-856.
23
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
[14] N. Lambert, Y.-N. Chen, Y.-C. Cheng, C.-M. Li, G.-Y. Chen, F. Nori. Quantum biology, Nature
Physics 9 (2013), pp. 10-18.
[15] S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio. Vibrations, quanta and biology, Contemporary Physics, 54 (2013), pp.
181-207,
[16] E. Einstein. The Born-Einstein-letter, p.158, Macmillan, London, UN, 1971.
[17] J. S. Bell. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox, Physics 1 (1964), pp. 195-200.
[18] B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Drau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen,
R. N. Schouten, C. Abelln, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen,
D. Elkouss, S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson. Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using
electron spins separated by 1.3 kilometres, Nature 526 (2015), pp. 682-686.
[19] M. Giustina et al.. A significant-loophole-free test of Bells theorem with entangled photons, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 115 (2015), 250401.
[20] L. K. Shalm et al, A strong loophole-free test of local realism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115 (2015), 250402.
[21] C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters. Teleporting an
unknown quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70
(1993), pp. 1895
[22] E. P. Wigner. Remarks on the Mind-Body Problem, In I. J. Good (ed.), The Scientist Speculates.
Heineman, 1961.
[23] D. Deutsch. Three connections between Everett’s interpretation and experiment, In Roger Penrose and
C. J. Isham (eds.), Quantum Concepts in Space and Time, Oxford University Press, pp. 215–225,
1986.
[24] V. Vedral. Living in a quantum world, Scientific American 11 (2015), pp. 98.
[25] P. G. Merli, G. F. Missiroli, and G. Pozzi. On the statistical aspect of electron interference phenomena,
American Journal of Physics 44 (1976), pp. 306-307.
[26] R. P. Crease, The most beautiful experiment, Physics World 15 (2002), pp. 19-20.
[27] O. Carnal, J. Mlynek. Young’s double-slit experiment with atoms: A simple atom interferometer, Phys.
Rev. Lett. 66 (1991), pp. 2689.
[28] K. Hornberger, S. Gerlich, P. Haslinger, S. Nimmrichter, M. Arndt Colloquium: Quantum interference
of clusters and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 157 (2012)
[29] B. Brezger, L. Hackermüller, S. Uttenthaler, J. Petschinka, M. Arndt, and A. Zeilinger, Matter-Wave
Interferometer for Large Molecules, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002), pp. 100404.
[30] S. Gerlich, S. Eibenberger, M. Tomandl, S. Nimmrichter, K. Hornberger, P. J. Fagan, J. Tüxen, M.
Mayor, M. Arndt, Quantum interference of large organic molecules, Nat. Comm. 2 (2011), pp. 263.
[31] J. D. Teufel, T. Donner, Dale Li, J. W. Harlow, M. S. Allman, K. Cicak, A. J. Sirois, J. D. Whittaker,
K. W. Lehnert, and R. W. Simmonds, Sideband cooling of micromechanical motion to the quantum
ground state. Nature 475 (2011), pp. 359-363.
[32] J. Chan, T. P. Mayer Alegre, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, J. T. Hill, A. Krause, S. Gröblacher, M. Aspelmeyer,
O. Painter, Laser cooling of a nanomechanical oscillator into its quantum ground state. Nature 478
(2011), pp. 89-92.
[33] F. Lecocq, J. B. Clark, R. W. Simmonds, J. Aumentado, and J. D. Teufel. Quantum Nondemolition
Measurement of a Nonclassical State of a Massive Object, Phys. Rev. X 5 (2015), pp. 041037.
[34] D. Bouwmeester, J.-W. Pan, K. Mattle, M. Eibl, H. Weinfurter, A. Zeilinger, Experimental quantum
teleportation. Nature 390 (1997), pp. 575-579.
[35] S. L. Braunstein, H. J. Kimble, Teleportation of Continuous Quantum Variables. Phys. Rev. Lett. 80
(1998), pp. 869.
[36] A. Furusawa, J. L. Sørensen, S. L. Braunstein, C. A. Fuchs, H. J. Kimble, E. S. Polzik, Unconditional
Quantum Teleportation. Science 282 (1998). pp. 706-709.
[37] X.-L. Wang, X.-D. Cai, Z.-E. Su, M.-C. Chen, D. Wu, L. Li, N.-L. Liu, C.-Y. Lu, Jian-Wei Pan,
Quantum teleportation of multiple degrees of freedom of a single photon. Nature 518 (2015), pp. 516-
519.
[38] J. Yin, J.-G. Ren, H. Lu, Y. Cao, H.-L. Yong, Y.-P. Wu, C. Liu, S.-K. Liao, F. Zhou, Y. Jiang, X.-D.
Cai, P. Xu, G.-S. Pan, J.-J. Jia, Y.-M. Huang, H. Yin, J.-Y. Wang, Y.-A. Chen, C.-Z. Peng, J.-W. Pan.
Quantum teleportation and entanglement distribution over 100-kilometre free-space channels. Nature
488 (2014), pp. 185-188.
[39] X.-S. Ma, T. Herbst, T. Scheidl, D. Wang, S. Kropatschek, W. Naylor, B. Wittmann, A. Mech, J.
24
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
25
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
[61] M. M. Wilde, J. M. McCracken, A. Mizel. Could light harvesting complexes exhibit non-classical effects
at room temperature?, Proc. R. Soc. A 446 (2010), pp. 1347-1363.
[62] M.-J. Tao, Q. Ai, F.-G. Deng, Y.-C. Cheng. Proposal for probing energy transfer pathway by single-
molecule pump-dump experiment, Sci. Rep. 6 (2016), pp. 27535.
[63] R. Wiltschko and W. Wiltschko. Magnetoreception, BioEssays 28 (2006), pp. 157.
[64] FMO Complex Simple Diagram.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FMO_Complex_Simple_Diagram.jpg
[65] T. Ritz, P. Thalau, J. B. Phillips, R. Wiltschko, W. Wiltschko. Resonance effects indicate a radical-pair
mechanism for avian magnetic compass, Nature 429 (2004), pp. 177-180.
[66] M. Zapka et al. Visual but not trigeminal mediation of magnetic compass information in a migratory
bird, Nature 461 (2009), pp. 1274-1277.
[67] T. Ritz, S. Adem, and K. Schulten. A Model for Photoreceptor-Based Magnetoreception in Birds,
Biophys. J. 78 (2000), pp. 707-718.
[68] I. K. Kominis. Quantum Zeno effect explains magnetic-sensitive radical-ion-pair reactions, Phys. Rev.
E 80 (2009), pp. 056115.
[69] J. Cai, G. G. Guerreschi, H. J. Briegel. Quantum Control and Entanglement in a Chemical Compass,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 104 (2010), pp. 220502.
[70] E. M. Gauger, E. Rieper, J. J. L. Morton, S. C. Benjamin, and V. Vedral. Sustained quantum coherence
and entanglement in the avian compass. , Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011), pp. 040503.
[71] C. Y. Cai, Qing Ai, H. T. Quan and C. P. Sun. Sensitive chemical compass assisted by quantum
criticality Phys. Rev. A 85 (2012), pp. 022315.
[72] K. Maeda, K. B. Henbest, F. Cintolesi, I. Kuprov, C. T. Rodgers, P. A. Liddell, D. Gust, C. R. Timmel,
and P. J. Hore. Chemical compass model of avian magnetoreception, Nature 453 (2008), pp. 387-390.
[73] H. G. Hiscock, S. Worster, D. R. Kattnig, C. Steers, Y. Jin, D. E. Manolopoulos, Henrik Mouritsen,
and P. J. Hore. The quantum needle of the avian magnetic compass, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113
(2016), pp. 4634-4639.
[74] S. L. Jacques. Optical properties of biological tissues: a review, Phys Med Biol 58 (2013), pp. R37.
[75] Z.-Q. Yin , A. A. Geraci, T. Li. Optomechanics of levitated dielectric particles, Int J Mod Phys B 27
(2013), pp. 1330018
[76] A. Ashkin and J. M. Dziedzic. Optical levitation in high vacuum, Appl. Phys. Lett. 28 (1976), pp. 333.
[77] T. Li, S. Kheifets, M. G. Raizen. Millikelvin cooling of an optically trapped microsphere in vacuum,
Nat Phys 7 (2011), pp. 527–530
[78] J. Gieseler, B. Deutsch, R. Quidant et al. Subkelvin parametric feedback cooling of a laser-trapped
nanoparticle, Phys Rev Lett 109 (2012), pp. 103603.
[79] N. Kiesel, F. Blaser, U. Delic et al. Cavity cooling of an optically levitated nanoparticle, Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 110 (2013), pp. 14180.
[80] P. Asenbaum, S. Kuhn, S. Nimmrichter, et al. Cavity cooling of free silicon nanoparticles in high-
vacuum, Nat Commun 4 (2013), pp. 2743.
[81] J. Millen, P. Z. G. Fonseca, T. Mavrogordatos et al. Cavity cooling a single charged levitated
nanosphere, Phys Rev Lett 114 (2015), pp. 123602.
[82] T. Li, Fundamental tests of physics with optically trapped microspheres, Springer, New York (2013).
[83] O. Romero-Isart, A. C. Pflanzer, F. Blaser, R. Kaltenbaek, N. Kiesel, M. Aspelmeyer, and J. I. Cirac.
Large Quantum Superpositions and Interference of Massive Nanometer-Sized Objects. Phys. Rev. Lett.
107 (2011), pp. 020405.
[84] Z. Q, Yin, T. Li, X. Zhang, L. M. Duan. Large quantum superpositions of a levitated nanodiamond
through spin-optomechanical coupling, Phys Rev A 88 (2013), pp. 033614.
[85] Z. Q. Yin, N. Zhao, T. Li. Hybrid opto-mechanical systems with nitrogen-vacancy centers, Sci China
Phys Mech Astron 58 (2015), pp. 050303.
[86] L. P. Neukirch, E. von Haartman, J. M. Rosenholm, A. N. Vamivakas. Multi-dimensional single-spin
nano-optomechanics with a levitated nanodiamond. Nat. Photonics 9 (2015), pp. 653–657.
[87] T. M. Hoang, J. Ahn, J. Bang, T. Li. Electron spin control of optically levitated nanodiamonds in
vacuum, Nature Communications 7 (2016), pp. 12550.
[88] T. M. Hoang, Y. Ma, J. Ahn, J. Bang, F. Robicheaux, Z.-Q. Yin, T. Li. ”Torsional optomechanics of
a levitated nonspherical nanoparticle”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) , pp. 123604.
[89] T. A. Palomaki, J. D. Teufel, R. W. Simmonds et al. Entangling mechanical motion with microwave
26
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
27
November 18, 2016 1:30 Contemporary Physics review˙v9
[118] A. K. Geim, M. V. Berry. Of flying frogs and levitrons, Eur J Phys 18 (1997), pp. 307.
[119] R. Heilmann, M. Gräfe, S. Nolte, A. Szameit. A novel integrated quantum circuit for high-order W-state
generation and its highly precise characterization, Sci. Bull. 60 (2015), pp. 96.
[120] Y. B. Sheng, F. G. Deng, G. L. Long. Complete hyperentangled-Bell-state analysis for quantum com-
munication, Phys. Rev. A 82 (2010), pp. 032318.
[121] Q. Ai. Toward quantum teleporting living objects, Sci. Bull. 61 (2016), pp. 110.
Figure 16. Zhang-qi Yin is an assistant research fellow in the Center for Quantum Information at Tsinghua University in China.
He obtained his PhD degree in physics (2009), master degree in theoretical physics (2006), and bachelor degree (2003) from
Xi’an Jiaotong University in China. He is interested in quantum information science and the foundation of quantum mechanics,
as well as physical implementations of quantum computation and quantum simulation with circuit QED, nitrogen-vacancy
centers, and optomechanical systems.
Figure 17. Tongcang Li is an assistant professor of physics and astronomy, and assistant professor of electrical and computer
engineering at Purdue University in USA. He obtained his PhD degree in physics from University of Texas at Austin in USA
in 2011, and bachelor degree from University of Science and Technology of China in 2004. He is interested in macroscopic
quantum mechanics, quantum optomechanics, quantum optics and plasmonics, laser trapping and cooling, and nonequilibrium
thermodynamics.
28