The term “quantum sensing” encompasses a broad array of technologies that leverage the principles of quantum mechanics potentially achieving unprecedented levels of sensitivity in measurement. Quantum sensors can be based on various platforms such as solid-state defects, atoms, ions, opto-mechanics and entangled light and be used for various applications as I’ve outlined in my post on micro-verticality. However, this very diversity is also a source of frustration and complexity, especially when it comes to the organization, funding, and development of these technologies.
From a fundamental research perspective, it makes sense to group quantum sensors given the physical principles they are based on. Physicists exploring the potential of these new quantum platforms need to dive deep into the nuances of each quantum phenomenon and experimental realization. This foundational work is crucial and requires targeted funding and support, which is why funding programs have been specifically dedicated to quantum sensing.
However, as these technologies progress along the Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs), they become more specialized and diverse regarding the required knowledge and expertise. For instance, the development of an NV magnetometer at higher TRLs involves skills and knowledge that are increasingly similar to those needed for traditional magnetometers. This includes the expertise of engineers and magnetometry specialists, and application experts who must collaborate closely. This raises an important question: Should we continue to have targeted funding calls for specific types of quantum sensors, like NV magnetometers, once they reach TRL 4? Or should we instead group and fund innovation for general emerging magnetometer technologies? The reality is that, at higher TRLs, the only distinct quantum feature that might remain is the potential for entanglement. However, devices leveraging entanglement are still in their nascent stages.
Despite these differences, there are commonalities among quantum sensors that cannot be ignored. For instance, many quantum sensors require low-noise lasers and microwave sources, and for miniaturization, integrated photonics might be essential. These shared technological needs suggest that some degree of grouping makes sense from the component development perspective.
In conclusion, while grouping quantum sensors based on their physical principles is beneficial at an academic and foundational research level, it becomes less practical as these technologies mature. Isolating the development of these technologies above TRL 4 is a mistake. Instead, funding and development strategies should recognize the evolving nature of these technologies and the increasingly interdisciplinary expertise required. Good examples of appropriate funding strategies include the MAGQUEST challenge and the European Space Agency’s parallel development of Cold Atom Interferometers and enhanced classical accelerometers. These approaches balance the need to support foundational quantum research while also promoting the integration of quantum technologies into broader technological ecosystems.
The field of quantum sensing is at a crossroads, where the initial grouping based on fundamental principles needs to evolve into a more nuanced approach that reflects the maturity and specific needs of the technologies. Only by recognizing and adapting to these changes can we ensure the continued advancement and integration of quantum sensing technologies into practical applications.
No responses yet