macroscopic?

[Su-Yong Lee]

What is the boundary between microscope and macroscope? I think there is no standard rule until now. Energy, or number of particles, or etc.?
It should be made like the boundary between classical and quantum? depending on the usefulness.......

[Changsuk Noh]

I guess it would be as elusive as quantum-classical distinction? Anyway, if you look st J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 14 R415, there's a review article by Leggett; the title is "Testing the limits of quantum mechanics: motivation, state of play, prospects"; he quotes his earlier attempted at a definition of the degree of 'macroscopic distinctness in p425. 

[Su-Yong Lee]

It seems to me that a macroscopic regime can be a quantum regime even if it looks like a classical regime.
The word, 'macrosopic', is to advertise one's work?  Quantum regime is microscopic and classical regime is macroscopic.
Instead of the word, I would like to say we have many particles or high energy.

[Changsuk Noh]

I am not sure if this is what you're saying, but sure, the word macroscopic doesn't necessarily mean classical. The whole point of Leggett's work is to show that macroscopic superposition (or quantumness) is possible and indeed a superconducting current is an example (for which he tries to define a measure of how macroscopic the superposition is). Not sure what we would gain by defining macro-vs-micro-ness though...