1. Introduction
Since its inception, quantum entanglement has been one of the most provocative and intellectually fertile concepts in quantum theory. The EPR paradox and Schrödinger’s reflections on entanglement highlighted profound implications for nonlocality and the global character of quantum descriptions (Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, 1935). For decades, entanglement was widely believed to be confined to microscopic scales, with the macroscopic world governed solely by classical physics. Yet sustained progress in both experimental capability and theoretical methodology has increasingly blurred that boundary (Kjaergaard et al., 2020; Zurek, 2003). Nonlocal correlations have now been verified in loophole-free Bell tests (Shalm et al., 2015; Hensen et al., 2015).
From the late twentieth century onward, platforms such as superconducting circuits, Bose–Einstein condensates, and optomechanical systems have yielded solid evidence of macroscopic quantum states and entanglement (Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen, 1935; Aspelmeyer, Kippenberg, and Marquardt, 2014). In optics and optomechanics, coupling microscopic photonic states to bright optical fields or mechanical resonators has enabled experimentally accessible demonstrations of micro-macro entanglement (Lvovsky et al., 2013; Palomaki et al., 2013). These results indicate that macroscopic quantum states are not prohibited by physical laws; rather, they are limited by engineering constraints and environmental interactions (Zurek, 2003). Optomechanics, in particular, has provided systematic demonstrations of the engineering requirements and readout protocols needed to reveal quantum behavior at large scales (Aspelmeyer, Kippenberg, and Marquardt, 2014). Measures of macroscopicity also provide standardized criteria for cross-platform comparison (Nimmrichter and Hornberger, 2013; Fröwis and Dür, 2012).
At the same time, quantum information theory treats entanglement as a resource (Horodecki et al., 2009). A mature toolbox of entanglement measures and information-theoretic quantities—such as mutual information and entanglement entropy—has offered new ways to characterize holistic correlations in high-dimensional and strongly coupled systems (Nielsen and Chuang, 2010; Tegmark, 2016). Decoherence theory explains the emergence of classicality through environmentally induced superselection (Zurek, 2003; Joos and Zeh, 1985); macroscopic realism and measurability can be probed through Leggett–Garg inequalities (Leggett and Garg, 1985). These advances have motivated researchers to abstract entanglement into a relational paradigm applicable to finance, social dynamics, ecology, and cognitive science (Ulanowicz, 1997; Fiedor, 2014; Débarre et al., 2023). When quantum-inspired mathematical tools generate testable predictions or materially improve analytic capabilities, their cross-domain migration carries practical value.
Against this backdrop, the present article draws on developments across superconducting circuits, optomechanics, and continuous-variable optics to examine the feasibility of macroscopic entanglement, the suppression of decoherence, and the metrics used to quantify correlations across scales. It then develops an interdisciplinary framework centered on “relational entanglement” that connects quantum technologies with complex-systems research. Three guiding questions structure the discussion: (1) the physical feasibility and evidence of macroscopic entanglement; (2) the conceptual and methodological contributions of entanglement—both as metaphor and as mathematical tool—to complex-systems analysis; and (3) the technological and interdisciplinary pathways—and associated challenges—for generalized entanglement applications.
Section 2 reviews the experimental and theoretical bases of macroscopic quantum phenomena;
Section 3 analyzes the interface between quantum metaphors and complex systems;
Section 4 and
Section 5 explore technological frontiers, applications, challenges, and responses; and the conclusion outlines future research directions.
2. Macroscopic Manifestations of Quantum Entanglement
Macroscopic entanglement poses both conceptual challenges and engineering milestones. Traditional views hold that macroscopic systems, with their many degrees of freedom and multiple environmental couplings, decohere rapidly Zurek 2003. Yet theory and experiment show that carefully designed collective modes and engineered isolation can preserve quantum features long enough for macroscopic entanglement to arise.
2.1. Superconducting Platforms
Superconducting qubits and SQUID devices provided some of the earliest unambiguous evidence of macroscopic quantum behavior. Coherent superpositions of circulating supercurrents—carried by up to Cooper pairs—have been observed through careful cryogenic cooling, magnetic shielding, and improved materials (Clarke and Wilhelm 2008; Kjaergaard et al. 2020). Superconducting circuits now lead efforts toward scalable quantum processors and fault-tolerant architectures (Terhal 2015; Gambetta, Chow, and Steffen 2020).
2.2. Optics and Optomechanics
Quantum-optical experiments have created hybrid micro-macro entangled states by coupling single photons to bright coherent fields (Lvovsky et al. 2013). In optomechanics, mechanical resonators near their motional ground state have been entangled with optical or microwave fields (Ockeloen-Korppi et al. 2018; Palomaki et al. 2013). These systems show that entanglement can be encoded in collective excitations of large systems under appropriate coherence conditions.
2.3. Decoherence and Its Mitigation
Decoherence selects stable, effectively classical states through environmental interactions Zurek 2003. Mitigation strategies include:
- a)
Cryogenic cooling: reducing thermal noise.
- b)
Materials engineering: minimizing defects and local noise sources (Bylander et al. 2011).
- c)
Active control: dynamical decoupling and real-time error correction (Terhal 2015).
Together, these approaches extend coherence times from microseconds to milliseconds or longer, enabling macroscopic entanglement to be created and manipulated.
2.4. Collective Modes and Criticality
Collective variables—such as phase degrees of freedom in superconducting circuits or vibrational modes in mechanical oscillators—allow large systems to exhibit coherent, low-dimensional quantum behavior Clarke and Wilhelm 2008. Near quantum critical points, diverging correlation lengths naturally enhance entanglement across macroscopic distances (Eisert, Cramer, and Plenio 2010; Osterloh et al. 2002).
2.5. Applications
Macroscopic entanglement can enhance quantum sensing, hybrid quantum networks, and simulations of collective quantum phenomena (Kimble 2008; Degen, Reinhard, and Cappellaro 2017). As materials science, noise engineering, and quantum control continue to advance, macroscopic entanglement is poised to become an integral component of quantum technologies.
3. Generalized Pathways and Frontier Applications
Quantum entanglement inspires progress both within quantum engineering and across interdisciplinary applications. This section outlines developments in integrated quantum hardware, quantum-enhanced imaging and sensing, and quantum-inspired modeling of complex systems.
3.1. Integrated Quantum Devices
Nanophotonic metasurfaces and integrated photonic circuits enable on-chip entangled-photon generation and manipulation, supporting scalable quantum optical processors (Khandwala et al. 2022). Superconducting circuits have advanced toward modular, fault-tolerant quantum architectures (Terhal 2015; Gambetta, Chow, and Steffen 2020).
3.2. Quantum Imaging and Sensing
Entangled photons enhance imaging beyond classical limits, improving phase resolution and sensitivity to minute structural variations (Wang et al. 2019). Quantum sensors achieve unprecedented precision in detecting fields, forces, and frequency shifts, with applications in Earth science and materials characterization (Degen, Reinhard, and Cappellaro 2017).
3.3. Quantum-Inspired Modeling Tools
Quantum information concepts, particularly mutual information and tensor networks, have informed the study of financial markets, gene networks, and ecological interactions (Débarre et al. 2023; Fiodor 2014; Cichocki et al. 2016). Quantum-inspired algorithms have also influenced models of decision-making and collective behavior (Busemeyer and Bruza 2012; Pothos and Busemeyer 2009).
3.4. Challenges and Future Directions
Key challenges include balancing scalability with noise suppression in hardware, avoiding overinterpretation in interdisciplinary applications, and ensuring ethical, well-informed deployment of quantum-inspired tools. Continued collaboration across engineering, theory, and application domains will be crucial for future progress.
4. Discussion and Responses to Core Critiques
Efforts to generalize the concept of entanglement raise several recurring critiques, particularly concerning decoherence, metaphorical overreach, computational limitations, and the feasibility of multiscale frameworks.
4.1. Decoherence
Environmental coupling rapidly suppresses coherence in macroscopic systems (Zurek 2003). Engineering advances—including cryogenics, improved materials, shielding, and active error correction—substantially extend coherence times, enabling practical manipulation of macroscopic entanglement (Terhal 2015; Bylander et al. 2011).
4.2. Metaphorical Limits
Using entanglement metaphorically risks category errors and overfitting. To remain scientifically grounded, quantum-inspired methods must either produce testable predictions or provide demonstrable analytic advantages (Fiedor 2014; Pothos and Busemeyer 2009). When they do, such metaphors become constructive modeling tools rather than superficial analogies.
4.3. Computational Complexity
Simulating highly entangled states is exponentially difficult on classical hardware, but tensor networks, sampling techniques, and hybrid quantum-classical algorithms mitigate these challenges (Eisert, Cramer, and Plenio 2010; Cichocki et al. 2016). Future quantum hardware may further reduce simulation burdens.
4.4. Multiscale Approaches
Although microscopic and macroscopic entanglement arise from distinct mechanisms, effective theories and renormalization-group frameworks may help connect quantum correlations across scales. Understanding entanglement near critical points remains a promising direction (Osterloh et al. 2002; Tegmark 2016).
5. Conclusion and Outlook
This article has traced the evolution of entanglement from a microscopic quantum phenomenon to a concept with potential utility across macroscopic physics and interdisciplinary applications. Experimental achievements in superconducting circuits, ultracold atoms, and optomechanics show that macroscopic entanglement can persist under conditions of low noise, collective encoding, and active error mitigation (Lvovsky et al. 2013; Palomaki et al. 2013). Quantum information theory offers rigorous tools—such as mutual information, entanglement entropy, and tensor networks—to analyze holistic correlations in high-dimensional systems (Horodecki et al. 2009; Tegmark 2016).
Quantum metasurfaces, integrated photonics, and quantum sensing promise new levels of device integration, while quantum-inspired modeling frameworks have begun influencing research in finance, ecology, social dynamics, and cognition (Khandwala et al. 2022; Busemeyer and Bruza 2012). Although decoherence, computational complexity, and metaphorical misuse remain challenges, progress across engineering, theory, and empirical validation suggests that generalized entanglement approaches have a promising future.
Important directions for further work include developing multiscale theories of quantum correlations, integrating quantum mathematical tools with machine learning and data-driven methods, and conducting rigorous interdisciplinary studies to test the breadth and limits of entanglement-inspired analytics. Beyond deepening our understanding of the quantum world, these approaches may also enrich the study of complex adaptive systems by emphasizing relational structure over isolated components.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, X.Z. and H.L.; methodology, X.Z. and H.L.; software, X.Z.; validation, X.Z.; formal analysis, X.Z.; investigation, X.Z.; data curation, X.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, X.Z.; writing—review and editing, X.Z. and H.L.; visualization, X.Z.. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement
If readers need the experimental data, please contact the author at: zxqsd@126.com.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to express their gratitude to multiple AI models (such as ChatGPT 5.1, DeepSeek R1, TRAE 3,Claude 2.5 Pro, etc.) for their assistance. Their assistance has enhanced the depth and comprehensiveness of their thinking, the speed of paper writing, and the verification of some test results.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Aspelmeyer, M., T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt (2014). “Cavity optomechanics”. In: Reviews of Modern Physics 86.4, pp. 1391-1452.
- Busemeyer, J. R. and P. D. Bruza (2012). Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision. Cambridge University Press.
- Bylander, J.; et al. (2011). “Noise spectroscopy through dynamical decoupling with a superconducting flux qubit”. In: Nature Physics 7.7, pp. 565-570. [CrossRef]
- Cichocki, A.; et al. (2016). “Tensor networks for dimensionality reduction and large-scale optimization”. In: Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning 9.4-5, pp. 249-429.
- Clarke, J. and F. K. Wilhelm (2008). “Superconducting quantum bits”. In: Nature 453.7198, pp. 1031–1042.
- Débarre, D.; et al. (2023). “Quantum mutual information for biological networks”. In: Journal of Theoretical Biology 563, p. 111126.
- Degen, C. L., F. Reinhard, and P. Cappellaro (2017). “Quantum sensing”. In: Reviews of Modern Physics 89.3, p. 035002.
- Einstein, A. , B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen (1935). “Can quantum-mechanical description of physical reality be considered complete?” In: Physical Review 47.10, pp. 777–780. [CrossRef]
- Eisert, Jens, Marcus Cramer, and Martin B. Plenio (2010). “Colloquium: Area laws for the entanglement entropy”. In: Reviews of Modern Physics 82.1, pp. 277–306. [CrossRef]
- Fiedor, P. (2014). “Mutual information in stock market networks”. In: European Physical Journal B 87.1, p. 57.
- Fröwis, F. and W. Dür (2012). “Measures of macroscopicity for quantum spin systems”. In: New Journal of Physics 14, p. 093039. [CrossRef]
- Gambetta, J. M., J. M. Chow, and M. Steffen (2020). “Building logical qubits in a superconducting quantum computing system”. In: Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, pp. 231–252. [CrossRef]
- Hensen, B.; et al. (2015). “Loophole-free Bell inequality violation using electron spins separated by 1.3 km”. In: Nature 526, pp. 682–686. [CrossRef]
- Horodecki, R.; et al. (2009). “Quantum entanglement”. In: Reviews of Modern Physics 81.2, pp. 865–942.
- Joos, E. and H. D. Zeh (1985). “The emergence of classical properties through interaction with the environment”. In: Zeitschrift für Physik B 59, pp. 223–243. [CrossRef]
- Khandwala, D.; et al. (2022). “Quantum metasurfaces for multi-photon entanglement”. In: Nature 603, pp. 623–628.
- Kimble, H. J. (2008). “The quantum internet”. In: Nature 453.7198, pp. 1023–1030.
- Kjaergaard, M.; et al. (2020). “Superconducting qubits: Current state of play”. In: Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics 11, pp. 369–395. [CrossRef]
- Leggett, A. J. and A. Garg (1985). “Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism”. In: Physical Review Letters 54, pp. 857–860.
- Lvovsky, A. I.; et al. (2013). “Observation of micro–macro entanglement of light”. In: Nature Physics 9.7, pp. 541–544.
- Nielsen, M. A. and I. L. Chuang (2010). Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press.
- Nimmrichter, S. and K. Hornberger (2013). “Macroscopicity of mechanical superposition states”. In: Physical Review Letters 110, p. 160403.
- Ockeloen-Korppi, C. F.; et al. (2018). “Stabilized entanglement of massive mechanical oscillators”. In: Nature 556.7702, pp. 478–482. [CrossRef]
- Osterloh, A.; et al. (2002). “Scaling of entanglement close to a quantum phase transition”. In: Nature 416, pp. 608–610. [CrossRef]
- Palomaki, T. A.; et al. (2013). “Entangling mechanical motion with microwave fields”. In: Nature 495.7440, pp. 210–214. [CrossRef]
- Pothos, E. M. and J. R. Busemeyer (2009). “Quantum probability theory explains human probability judgment errors”. In: PNAS 106.33, pp. 17951–17956.
- Shalm, L. K.; et al. (2015). “Strong loophole-free test of local realism”. In: Physical Review Letters 115, p. 250402. [CrossRef]
- Tegmark, M. (2016). “Improved measures of integrated information”. In: PLoS Computational Biology 12.11, e1005123. [CrossRef]
- Terhal, Barbara M. (2015). “Quantum error correction for quantum memories”. In: Reviews of Modern Physics 87.2, pp. 307–346.
- Ulanowicz, R. E. (1997). Ecology, the Ascendent Perspective. Columbia University Press. Wang, F. et al. (2019). “Super-resolving quantum imaging with entangled photons”. In: Light: Science & Applications 8, p. 104.
- Zurek, W. H. (2003). “Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical”.In: Reviews of Modern Physics 75.3, pp. 715–775. [CrossRef]
|
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).