Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Probing the Quantum Nature of Gravity through Classical Diffusion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read If gravity is classical — a local classical channel (LOCC) — it must diffuse the momentum of quantum matter by a minimum, calculable amount, and a millikelvin torsion pendulum could detect the effect without macroscopic quantum…

desk verdict Clever idea, but the paper's advertised lower bound is not derived — the first-order PPT expansion has a wrong null vector and the Newtonian term vanishes at that order. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13030 v3 pith:LKBETVUK submitted 2025-01-22 quant-ph gr-qc

Oliviero Angeli , Sandro Donadi , Giovanni Di Bartolomeo , José Luis Gaona-Reyes , Andrea Vinante , Angelo Bassi This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phgr-qc PACS 04.60.-m03.65.Yz04.80.Cc
keywords classicalgravityLOCCmomentumdiffusionLindbladmasterequationgravitationaldecoherencetorsionpendulumseparabilityboundnon-unitary
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper establishes a consequence of classical gravity: if gravity is a local classical channel (LOCC), it cannot act on quantum matter without also jiggling it. Avoiding faster-than-light signaling forces the classical interaction to collapse spatial superpositions, and a random, translation-invariant collapse is necessarily diffusive, so the jiggling is unavoidable even for ordinary, well-localized masses. For two harmonically trapped masses, the paper derives the minimum diffusion any such gravity must produce, $\gamma_{11} + m^2\omega^2\gamma_{33} \ge Gm^2/(\hbar d^3)$, and shows that the effect appears as a slow reheating that a millikelvin torsion pendulum could in principle detect. The payoff is a table-top test of the quantum nature of gravity that requires no macroscopic superpositions and no quantum state control.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the no-entanglement bound of Eq. (23), $\gamma_{11} + m^2\omega^2\gamma_{33} \ge Gm^2/(\hbar d^3)$, obtained by requiring that the two oscillators' initial ground state passes the positivity-under-partial-transposition (PPT) criterion at all times. The master equation (11) is the second piece of machinery: a Lindblad form whose Hamiltonian carries the linearized Newtonian coupling $K\hat{x}_1\hat{x}_2$ and whose double-commutator terms, weighted by a real symmetric matrix $\gamma_{ij}$, are the only way to add diffusion without spoiling the classical Newtonian limit. The third ingredient is the statistical argument tying classical gravity to collapse: the density-matrix map must be linear to prevent superluminal signaling, so the collapse is random, and translation-invariant random collapse is diffusive, which justifies the master-equation structure rather than an arbitrary noise model. The setup-independent form of the bound relies on treating the coefficients $\gamma_{ij}$ as universal, depending on masses and distance but not on trap frequencies; the paper flags this as a reasonable expectation and discusses a symmetric-setup relaxation in its appendix.

What would settle it

Run the proposed protocol — two 2.55 kg osmium masses on a torsion pendulum at $\Omega/2\pi = 10^{-4}$ Hz, cooled to 10 mK with quality factor $Q = 2\times10^{10}$, feedback-cooled and then monitored in the dark with a near-quantum-limited detector — and measure the non-thermal phonon heating rate after thermal background subtraction. If the inferred diffusion combination $\gamma_{11} + m^2\omega^2\gamma_{33}$ falls below $Gm^2/(\hbar d^3)$ (equivalently, if the heating rate stays below $\Gamma_G = \pi\omega_G^2/(12\beta^3\Omega)$), the paper's bound is violated and classical LOCC gravity is refuted. A second, targeted check: run the same masses at a different trap frequency; if the measured diffusion combination changes with $\omega$ while $m$ and $d$ are fixed, the universality premise fails and only a setup-specific constraint would remain.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a classical, local gravitational interaction must come with a diffusive noise floor: the requirement that gravity never entangle two initially separated quantum systems, together with the no-signaling constraint, implies an unavoidable randomness in the gravitational coupling, and that randomness shows up as momentum diffusion in any probe, classical or quantum. The paper develops this through Feynman's 1957 thought experiment: classical gravity must collapse spatial superpositions, the collapse must be random, and the corresponding density-matrix map must be linear, which pins the dynamics to a specific master equation form rather than an ad hoc model. Within that master equation for two trapped masses with linearized Newtonian gravity, demanding that the ground state never entangle forces the diffusion coefficients to satisfy the lower bound of Eq. (23); the bound is necessary but not sufficient, so seeing the diffusion would not prove gravity is classical, while not seeing it at the required level would rule out classical gravity in the LOCC sense. The sharp experimental consequence is a minimum reheating rate for a cooled torsion pendulum, quantified by $\Gamma_G = \pi\omega_G^2/(12\beta^3\Omega)$ with $\omega_G = \sqrt{G\rho}$, which near-term technology could in principle resolve.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the gravitational diffusion coefficients are universal — independent of the trap frequency, fixed only by the masses and their separation — which the paper calls a 'reasonable expectation' but does not derive; if classical gravity diffused matter in a frequency-dependent way, only a weaker, setup-specific bound would follow, and the experiment would not test gravity itself.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A null result — a clean experiment that limits the diffusion below Eq. (23) — would rule out all classical LOCC models of gravity without ever preparing a macroscopic superposition.
  • Every existing hybrid classical-quantum gravity model (collapse models, feedback-based models, the postquantum theory) reduces to the same master equation structure with different diffusion coefficients, so the bound constrains all of them jointly.
  • The proposed torsion-pendulum protocol is quantitatively specified: $\Omega/2\pi = 10^{-4}$ Hz, osmium masses of 2.55 kg at near-contact separation, $T = 10$ mK, $Q \approx 2\times10^{10}$, a near-quantum-limited readout, and about two days of integration to resolve 1% of the thermal noise.
  • Current torsion pendulums sit roughly four orders of magnitude below the required damping time, but the millikelvin regime was already estimated in 1977 to allow $Q \sim 10^{10}$, and no dedicated attempt has been made since.
  • Detecting the diffusion would constitute the first observed departure from the unitary Schr\"odinger evolution under the Newtonian potential, marking a gravitational effect that is real but non-quantum.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The argument's logic is not specific to gravity: any classical local channel mediating a force between quantum systems would need a similar noise floor, so the inequality's structure suggests analogous diffusion bounds for other hypothetical classical forces, each with its own coupling constant in place of $G$.
  • The universality premise is directly testable: repeat the proposed measurement at two different trap frequencies with the same masses and separation; if the inferred combination $\gamma_{11} + m^2\omega^2\gamma_{33}$ changes with $\omega$, the setup-independent bound fails and only weaker, setup-specific constraints survive.
  • The quiet-environment requirement might be easier to meet in space than on Earth: the paper notes that LISA Pathfinder already demonstrated acceleration noise below $10^{-15}\,g/\sqrt{\mathrm{Hz}}$, which would sidestep the millikelvin torsion-fiber dissipation challenge altogether.
  • A single high-Q torsion pendulum of this kind would simultaneously probe the gravitational diffusion bound and the parameter space of spontaneous collapse models, since both predict the same double-commutator heating signature.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript argues that if gravity is classical in the LOCC sense, it must act as a stochastic, diffusive channel on quantum matter. For two harmonically trapped equal masses it writes a general Lindblad master equation, imposes that Newtonian evolution is recovered on classical states, and uses preservation of separability under partial transposition to derive a lower bound on momentum diffusion, Eq. (23). It then proposes a torsion-pendulum protocol at millikelvin temperatures, with parameters in Table I, to detect the predicted heating rate. The conceptual argument is that classical gravity must collapse spatial superpositions to avoid superluminal signaling, and that this collapse is necessarily diffusive by the theorem of ref. [84].

Significance. If valid, the paper would provide a genuinely new experimental route: the test target becomes diffusion of a classical macroscopic probe rather than gravitationally induced entanglement of prepared quantum states. The paper is clear about the logical direction (the bound is necessary for separability, not sufficient for classicality), and it presents a detailed, falsifiable experimental protocol with quantitative requirements. It also includes useful appendix material on linearization, noise conditions, and symmetries. However, the quantitative foundation, especially Eq. (23), is not established by the present derivation.

major comments (3)
  1. [IV, Eq. (18)-(19)] The derivation of Eq. (19) from the first-order expansion of the PPT condition is not valid as written. With the ordering c=(x1,x2,p1,p2) and M0=I4+iΛJΛ, the kernel of M0 is spanned by vectors of the form (a,-b,ia,-ib), not by the vector z0=(a,-b,ia,ib) stated in the text: for the printed vector one obtains z0†M0z0=2|b|^2, so the first term in Eq. (18) does not vanish. More importantly, even with the corrected null vector, the first-order contribution of the Newtonian term to z†(dV/dt)z vanishes: writing H_int=λ x1x2 with λ=K/(m√Ω1Ω2), the initial covariance derivative contains a block [[0,-A],[-A,0]] with A=[[0,1],[1,0]], and on the null space p=-ix one obtains an expression proportional to Re[x†Ax]=0. Thus a first-order expansion cannot produce the K-dependent term in Eq. (19); entanglement generation is quadratic in time. The bound in Eq. (23) therefore currently lacks a valid derivation and must be re-derived by a second-order expansion or by an independent argument.
  2. [IV, after Eq. (22); App. E] The transition from the setup-dependent inequality Eq. (22) to the universal bound Eq. (23) relies on the assumption that the gravitational diffusion coefficients γij are independent of the trapping frequencies and that, for equal masses, γ11=γ22 and γ33=γ44. This is introduced as "a reasonable expectation" but is not derived from the stated assumptions. If γij depend on Ω1 and Ω2, Eq. (22) only constrains the specific trap configuration and Eq. (23) does not follow. The symmetric treatment in Appendix E does not repair this: Eq. (E1) still contains the resonance frequency Ω and provides no frequency-independent prediction. The paper should either derive the frequency independence from the framework or explicitly state the main theorem as conditional on this additional assumption.
  3. [II, ref. [84]] The key step from "classical gravity forces collapse" to "the dynamics must be diffusive" is imported from ref. [84], which is authored by three of the present authors. The manuscript does not state the hypotheses or content of that theorem, although this step is load-bearing for the rest of the paper. Please include a self-contained statement of the theorem and its conditions, so that the reader can check that the collapse dynamics required by the no-signaling argument in Section II falls within its scope.
minor comments (5)
  1. [IV, Eq. (20)] The step called "the strongest condition" is not a straightforward maximization of the left-hand side, because α also enters the right-hand side through the cosα and sinα terms; Eq. (20) is better described as the necessary condition obtained by choosing α=π/2.
  2. [III] There are typos in the text: "the the Hamiltonian" and "supposed to to equal" should be corrected.
  3. [Appendix E] The text contains typos "findinig" and "Wiener-Kinchine" (should be Wiener-Khinchin).
  4. [V, Table I] The statement that the required parameters are within reach of near-term technology should be softened: the text itself notes a gap of four orders of magnitude in Q relative to demonstrated torsion pendulums, so the feasibility claim rests on extrapolation from loss scaling and on the Braginsky-Caves-Thorne estimate, not on demonstrated performance.
  5. [III, Eqs. (5)-(7)] The notation fk(ĉ) is replaced by fk without further definition in Eq. (7); the notation should be harmonized for readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the diffusion bound is derived from the PPT separability condition and the Newtonian limit, not from fitted data; one self-citation [84] serves as a supporting lemma but does not smuggle in the result.

full rationale

The central quantitative claim, Eq. (23), is derived rather than assumed. The authors begin with the most general diffusive Lindblad dynamics, Eq. (11), impose that a LOCC classical-gravity channel cannot generate entanglement, and then use the PPT criterion, Eqs. (16)-(18), to obtain the lower bounds in Eqs. (19)-(23). The matrix gamma is left general and only constrained by positivity; no parameter is fitted to any data that Eq. (23) later predicts. The frequency-independence of the gamma_ij is introduced explicitly as a 'reasonable expectation' immediately after Eq. (22), and it is relaxed in Appendix E, so it is a stated physical premise rather than a concealed version of the conclusion. The only notable self-citation is ref. [84], by Donadi, Ferialdi and Bassi, used to support the statement that collapse dynamics are diffusive. That is a separate general theorem about stochastic collapse, not an assertion of the target lower bound, and the paper supplements it with an independent physical argument and additional references. Thus the self-citation is minor and not circularly load-bearing. The reviewer's algebraic objection to the first-order PPT expansion in Eqs. (18)-(19), if correct, would be a correctness flaw in the derivation of Eq. (23), but it is not a circularity: it would not make Eq. (23) equal to an input or to a fitted parameter by construction. On the circularity axis, the paper is self-contained: the bound is a consequence of stated assumptions, not a repackaging of them.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or dimensions. The diffusion noises w_i(t) are effective stochastic processes representing the classicality requirement, not new entities. The main ledger items are the classicality and locality assumptions that define the target scenario, plus the unproven frequency-independence of gamma used to obtain the clean bound.

free parameters (1)
  • gamma_ij diffusion coefficients = unconstrained, positive semidefinite matrix
    General entries of the diffusion matrix in Eq. (11); the paper imposes only a lower bound, so the predicted signal is a one-sided constraint rather than a unique value.
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Matter is quantum.
    Section II, assumption 1; the entire argument operates within quantum mechanics for matter.
  • domain assumption Gravity is classical, meaning the gravitational potential has a well-defined value at each point in space.
    Section II, assumption 2; this is the premise being tested, not a derived result.
  • domain assumption Gravity is local and defines a LOCC channel, forbidding superluminal signaling and entanglement generation.
    Section II, assumption 3; used to force the collapse and diffusion argument.
  • domain assumption Classical systems follow Newton's laws, so the Hamiltonian must contain the Newtonian potential and dissipative deviations must be excluded.
    Section II, assumption 4, and Section III; used to justify Hermitian Lindblad operators.
  • standard math No-signaling requires the density-matrix evolution to be linear, and collapse dynamics are necessarily diffusive.
    Section II invokes refs. [84-88]; this theorem is load-bearing and is partially self-cited via ref. [84].
  • domain assumption The gravitational interaction and its diffusive effects can be treated as Markovian.
    Section III argues the non-Markovian timescale is negligible for non-relativistic motion, justifying the GKSL form.
  • ad hoc to paper Gravitational diffusion coefficients gamma_ij are independent of trapping frequencies and symmetric under exchange of equal masses.
    Introduced after Eq. (22) as a 'reasonable expectation'; it is not derived and is needed to convert the setup-dependent PPT bound into the universal bound Eq. (23).
  • domain assumption The experimental regime has small displacements and separation much larger than the spatial extent of the wave functions.
    Section III and Appendix A; this justifies linearizing the Hamiltonian and the Lindblad operators.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing the Quantum Nature of Gravity through Classical Diffusion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LKBETVUK

@misc{pith2026250113030,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing the Quantum Nature of Gravity through Classical Diffusion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LKBETVUK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13030}
}
read the original abstract

The question of whether gravity is fundamentally quantum remains one of the deepest open problems in modern physics. A recently explored approach consists of testing gravity's ability to entangle quantum systems, which requires preparing and controlling massive quantum states - a formidable experimental challenge. We propose an alternative strategy that circumvents the need for quantum state engineering. We show that, if gravity is classical, it must necessarily modify momentum statistics in a non-unitary way. We consider the corresponding linearized master equation for two harmonically trapped objects interacting gravitationally and establish a lower bound on the noise that any classical gravitational interaction must induce. We then outline an experimental protocol based on a high-precision torsion pendulum at millikelvin temperatures, showing that the predicted diffusion, if present, is in principle detectable with near-term technology. Our approach offers a novel route to testing the classical versus quantum nature of gravity without requiring macroscopic quantum superpositions or precise control of the system's quantum state, thereby significantly reducing the experimental complexity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13030 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Here, the first pair of masses can be thought as fixed, as its role is only to produce the classical gravity noise, while the second pair is a proper torsion pendulum; a summary of the parameters required by the proposed implementation is shown in Table I. Regarding its feasibility, the biggest challenge is the extremely low level of dissipation and thermal noise required. The longest damping time demonstrated so fa… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Diffusion Minimization via Optimal Smearing in Collapse and Hybrid Classical-Quantum Gravitational Models

    quant-ph 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The Principle of Minimal Heating fixes the otherwise-arbitrary smearing profile: Gaussian for GRW, a quartic-then-cutoff profile for CSL, and a parabola-then-cutoff profile for Diósi–Penrose and Tilloy–Diósi models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

136 extracted references · 75 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [84]

    Search for spontaneous radiation from wave func- tion collapse in the majorana demonstrator

    IJ Arnquist, FT Avignone III, AS Barabash, CJ Barton, KH Bhimani, E Blalock, B Bos, M Busch, M Buuck, TS Cald- well, et al. Search for spontaneous radiation from wave func- tion collapse in the majorana demonstrator. Physical Review Letters, 129(8):080401, 2022

    work page 2022

  2. [1]

    The role of gravitation in physics: report from the 1957 Chapel Hill Conference

    C ´ecile M DeWitt and Dean Rickles. The role of gravitation in physics: report from the 1957 Chapel Hill Conference. Edition Open Access, 2011

    1957

  3. [2]

    in the dark

    As discussed before, the two states must col- lapse. Let us call ˆρB the associated density matrix before the collapse occurs, and ˆρ′ B the density matrix after the collapse; the difference between the two also encodes information about the change in momentum (diffusion) triggered by the collapse. Suppose now that Alice measures the spin of her particles...

  4. [3]

    Loop quantum gravity

    Carlo Rovelli. Loop quantum gravity. Living Reviews in Relativity, 11:5, 2008

    2008

  5. [4]

    The first two assumptions should be self-evident

    Classical systems follow Newton’s laws. The first two assumptions should be self-evident. In partic- ular, the second implies that the gravitational potential has a well-defined value at each point in space and, therefore, can- not be in a superposition. The third assumption states that gravity acts locally on individual systems. In the following, we cons...

  6. [5]

    A. N. Schellekens. Life at the interface of particle physics and string theory. Reviews of Modern Physics, 85:1491, 2013

    2013

  7. [6]

    Is a graviton detectable? International Journal of Modern Physics A, 28:1330041, 2013

    Freeman Dyson. Is a graviton detectable? International Journal of Modern Physics A, 28:1330041, 2013

    2013

  8. [7]

    Can gravitons be de- tected? Foundations of Physics, 36:1801, 2006

    Tony Rothman and Stephen Boughn. Can gravitons be de- tected? Foundations of Physics, 36:1801, 2006

    2006

Show all 136 references
  1. [8]

    Daniel Carney, Valerie Domcke, and Nicholas L. Rodd. Gravi- ton detection and the quantization of gravity. Physical Review D, 109:044009, 2024

    2024

  2. [9]

    Graviton-photon oscillations as a probe of quantum gravity

    Andrea Palessandro. Graviton-photon oscillations as a probe of quantum gravity. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41:215011, 2024

    2024

  3. [10]

    The noise of gravitons

    Maulik Parikh, Franck Wilczek, and George Zahariade. The noise of gravitons. International Journal of Modern Physics D, 29:2042001, 2020

    2020

  4. [11]

    Noise and decoherence induced by gravitons

    Sugumi Kanno, Jiro Soda, and Junsei Tokuda. Noise and decoherence induced by gravitons. Physical Review D, 103:044017, 2021

    2021

  5. [12]

    Manikandan, Thomas Beitel, and Igor Pikovski

    Germain Tobar, Sreenath K. Manikandan, Thomas Beitel, and Igor Pikovski. Detecting single gravitons with quantum sens- ing. Nature Communications, 15:7229, 2024

    2024

  6. [13]

    Quantum superposition of massive objects and the quantiza- tion of gravity

    Alessio Belenchia, Robert M Wald, Flaminia Giacomini, Es- teban Castro-Ruiz, ˇCaslav Brukner, and Markus Aspelmeyer. Quantum superposition of massive objects and the quantiza- tion of gravity. Physical Review D, 98(12):126009, 2018

    2018

  7. [14]

    Do gedanken experiments compel quantization of gravity? Physical Review D, 104(8):086024, 2021

    Erik Rydving, Erik Aurell, and Igor Pikovski. Do gedanken experiments compel quantization of gravity? Physical Review D, 104(8):086024, 2021

    2021

  8. [15]

    Newton, entanglement, and the graviton

    Daniel Carney. Newton, entanglement, and the graviton. Physical Review D, 105:024029, 2022

    2022

  9. [16]

    Gravitationally mediated entanglement: Newtonian field versus gravitons

    Daine L Danielson, Gautam Satishchandran, and Robert M Wald. Gravitationally mediated entanglement: Newtonian field versus gravitons. Physical Review D, 105(8):086001, 2022

    2022

  10. [17]

    On in- ference of quantization from gravitationally induced entangle- ment

    Vasileios Fragkos, Michael Kopp, and Igor Pikovski. On in- ference of quantization from gravitationally induced entangle- ment. A VSQuantum Science, 4:045601, 2022

    2022

  11. [18]

    Gravitation and quantum mechanics of macroscopic objects

    Frederick Karolyhazy. Gravitation and quantum mechanics of macroscopic objects. Il Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970), 42(2):390–402, 1966

    1965

  12. [19]

    A universal master equation for the gravita- tional violation of quantum mechanics

    Lajos Diosi. A universal master equation for the gravita- tional violation of quantum mechanics. Physics letters A, 120(8):377–381, 1987

    1987

  13. [20]

    On the gravitization of quantum mechanics 1: Quantum state reduction

    Roger Penrose. On the gravitization of quantum mechanics 1: Quantum state reduction. Foundations of Physics, 44:557– 575, 2014

    2014

  14. [21]

    On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction

    Roger Penrose. On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction. General relativity and gravitation, 28:581–600, 1996

    1996

  15. [22]

    Gravity induced wave function collapse

    Giulio Gasbarri, Marko Toro ˇs, Sandro Donadi, and Angelo Bassi. Gravity induced wave function collapse. Physical Review D, 96(10):104013, 2017

    2017

  16. [23]

    Sourcing semiclassical grav- ity from spontaneously localized quantum matter

    Antoine Tilloy and Lajos Di ´osi. Sourcing semiclassical grav- ity from spontaneously localized quantum matter. Physical Review D, 93(2):024026, 2016

    2016

  17. [24]

    Ghirardi-rimini-weber model with massive flashes

    Antoine Tilloy. Ghirardi-rimini-weber model with massive flashes. Physical Review D, 97(2):021502, 2018

    2018

  18. [25]

    A postquantum theory of classical grav- ity? Physical Review X, 13(4):041040, 2023

    Jonathan Oppenheim. A postquantum theory of classical grav- ity? Physical Review X, 13(4):041040, 2023

    2023

  19. [26]

    The weak field limit of quantum matter back-reacting on classical spacetime

    Isaac Layton, Jonathan Oppenheim, Andrea Russo, and Zachary Weller-Davies. The weak field limit of quantum matter back-reacting on classical spacetime. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2023(8):1–43, 2023

    2023

  20. [27]

    Seven nonstandard models coupling quantum matter and gravity

    Sandro Donadi and Angelo Bassi. Seven nonstandard models coupling quantum matter and gravity. A VSQuantum Science, 4(2), 2022

    2022

  21. [28]

    Spin entan- glement witness for quantum gravity

    Sougato Bose, Anupam Mazumdar, Gavin W Morley, Hendrik Ulbricht, Marko Toroˇs, Mauro Paternostro, Andrew A Geraci, Peter F Barker, MS Kim, and Gerard Milburn. Spin entan- glement witness for quantum gravity. Physical review letters, 119(24):240401, 2017

    2017

  22. [29]

    Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evi- dence of quantum effects in gravity

    Chiara Marletto and Vlatko Vedral. Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evi- dence of quantum effects in gravity. Physical review letters, 119(24):240402, 2017

    2017

  23. [30]

    Observable quantum entanglement due to gravity

    Tanjung Krisnanda, Guo Yao Tham, Mauro Paternostro, and Tomasz Paterek. Observable quantum entanglement due to gravity. npj Quantum Information, 6(1):12, 2020

    2020

  24. [31]

    On the possibility of laboratory evidence for quantum superposition of geometries

    Marios Christodoulou and Carlo Rovelli. On the possibility of laboratory evidence for quantum superposition of geometries. Physics Letters B, 792:64–68, 2019

    2019

  25. [32]

    Optimal fidelity witnesses for gravitational entanglement

    Thomas Guff, Nicolas Boulle, and Igor Pikovski. Optimal fidelity witnesses for gravitational entanglement. Physical Review A, 105:022444, 2022. 15

    2022

  26. [33]

    Marshman, Anupam Mazumdar, and Sougato Bose

    Jules Tilly, Ryan J. Marshman, Anupam Mazumdar, and Sougato Bose. Qudits for witnessing quantum-gravity- induced entanglement of masses under decoherence. Physical Review A, 104:052416, 2021

    2021

  27. [34]

    Marshman, Sougato Bose, and Anupam Mazumdar

    Martine Schut, Jules Tilly, Ryan J. Marshman, Sougato Bose, and Anupam Mazumdar. Improving resilience of quantum- gravity-induced entanglement of masses to decoherence using three superpositions. Physical Review A, 105:032411, 2022

    2022

  28. [35]

    Generation rate of quan- tum gravity induced entanglement with multiple massive par- ticles

    Pan Li, Yi Ling, and Zhangping Yu. Generation rate of quan- tum gravity induced entanglement with multiple massive par- ticles. Physical Review D, 107:064054, 2023

    2023

  29. [36]

    van de Kamp, Ryan J

    Thomas W. van de Kamp, Ryan J. Marshman, Sougato Bose, and Anupam Mazumdar. Quantum gravity witness via entan- glement of masses: Casimir screening. Physical Review A, 102:062807, 2020

    2020

  30. [37]

    Marshman, Anupam Mazumdar, and Sougato Bose

    Ryan J. Marshman, Anupam Mazumdar, and Sougato Bose. Locality and entanglement in table-top testing of the quantum nature of linearized gravity. Physical Review A, 101:052110, 2020

    2020

  31. [38]

    Relaxation of ex- perimental parameters in a quantum-gravity-induced entan- glement of masses protocol using electromagnetic screening

    Martine Schut, Alexey Grinin, Andrew Dana, Sougato Bose, Andrew Geraci, and Anupam Mazumdar. Relaxation of ex- perimental parameters in a quantum-gravity-induced entan- glement of masses protocol using electromagnetic screening. Physical Review Research, 5:043170, 2023

    2023

  32. [39]

    Gravitational decoherence by the appara- tus in the quantum-gravity-induced entanglement of masses

    Fabian Gunnik, Anupam Mazumdar, Martine Schut, and Marko Toro ˇs. Gravitational decoherence by the appara- tus in the quantum-gravity-induced entanglement of masses. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40:235006, 2023

    2023

  33. [40]

    Gravity entanglement, quantum reference sys- tems, degrees of freedom

    Marios Christodoulou, Andrea Di Biagio, Richard Howl, and Carlo Rovelli. Gravity entanglement, quantum reference sys- tems, degrees of freedom. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40:047001, 2023

    2023

  34. [41]

    Acceleration noise constraints on gravity- induced entanglement

    Andr ´e Großardt. Acceleration noise constraints on gravity- induced entanglement. Physical Review A, 102:040202(R), 2020

    2020

  35. [42]

    Testing the non- classicality of spacetime: What can we learn from bell-bose et al .-marletto-vedral experiments? Physical Review D, 104:126030, 2021

    Adrian Kent and Dami ´an Pital ´ua-Garc´ıa. Testing the non- classicality of spacetime: What can we learn from bell-bose et al .-marletto-vedral experiments? Physical Review D, 104:126030, 2021

    2021

  36. [43]

    Hadrien Chevalier, A. J. Paige, and M. S. Kim. Witnessing the nonclassical nature of gravity in the presence of unknown interactions. Physical Review A, 102:022428, 2020

    2020

  37. [44]

    Gravity-induced entanglement in optomechanical systems

    Akira Matsumara and Kazuhiro Yamamoto. Gravity-induced entanglement in optomechanical systems. Physical Review D, 102:106021, 2020

    2020

  38. [45]

    Tanjung Krisnanda, Tomasz Paterek, Mauro Paternostro, and Timothy C. H. Liew. Quantum neuromorphic approach to efficient sensing of gravity-induced entanglement. Physical Review D, 107:086014, 2023

    2023

  39. [46]

    Feasible generation of gravity-induced entanglement by us- ing optomechanical systems

    Daisuke Miki, Akira Matsumara, and Kazuhiro Yamamoto. Feasible generation of gravity-induced entanglement by us- ing optomechanical systems. Physical Review D, 110:024057, 2024

    2024

  40. [47]

    Truly relativistic gravity mediated entanglement protocol us- ing superpositions of rotational energies

    Gerard Higgins, Andrea Di Biagio, and Marios Christodoulou. Truly relativistic gravity mediated entanglement protocol us- ing superpositions of rotational energies. Physical Review D, 110:L101901, 2024

    2024

  41. [48]

    Entanglement and decoherence of massive particles due to gravity

    Daisuke Miki, Akira Matsumara, and Kazuhiro Yamamoto. Entanglement and decoherence of massive particles due to gravity. Physical Review D, 103:026017, 2021

    2021

  42. [49]

    Amplification of grav- itationally induced entanglement

    Tianfeng Feng and Vlatko Vedral. Amplification of grav- itationally induced entanglement. Physical Review D, 106:066013, 2022

    2022

  43. [50]

    Daniel Carney, Holger M ¨uller, and Jacob M. Taylor. Using an atom interferometer to infer gravitational entanglement gener- ation. Physical Review X Quantum, 2:030330, 2021

    2021

  44. [51]

    Sagnac interferome- ter and the quantum nature of gravity

    Chiara Marletto and Vlatko Vedral. Sagnac interferome- ter and the quantum nature of gravity. Journal of Physics Communications, 5:051001, 2021

    2021

  45. [52]

    Chau Nguyen and Fabian Bernards

    H. Chau Nguyen and Fabian Bernards. Entanglement dynam- ics of two mesoscopic objects with gravitational interaction. The European Physical Journal D, 74:69, 2020

    2020

  46. [53]

    Gravitationally induced entanglement in a harmonic trap

    Jackson Yant and Miles Blencowe. Gravitationally induced entanglement in a harmonic trap. Physical Review D, 107:106018, 2023

    2023

  47. [54]

    Distribution of quantum gravity induced en- tanglement in many-body systems

    Pratik Ghosal, Arkaprabha Ghosal, and Somshubrho Bandy- opadhyay. Distribution of quantum gravity induced en- tanglement in many-body systems. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 57:445302, 2024

    2024

  48. [55]

    Dianzhen Cui and X. X. Yi. Exponentially enhanced gravita- tionally induced entanglement between quantum systems with a two-phonon drive. Physical Review A, 108:023502, 2023

    2023

  49. [56]

    Mechanism for the quantum natured gravitons to entangle masses.Physical Review D, 105:106028, 2022

    Sougato Bose, Anupam Mazumdar, Martine Schut, and Marko Marko Toro ˇs. Mechanism for the quantum natured gravitons to entangle masses.Physical Review D, 105:106028, 2022

    2022

  50. [57]

    van de Kamp, Ryan J

    Marko Toro ˇs, Thomas W. van de Kamp, Ryan J. Marshman, M. S. Kim, Anupam Mazumdar, and Sougato Bose. Relative acceleration noise mitigation for nanocrystal matter-wave in- terferometry: Applications to entangling masses via quantum gravity. Physical Review Research, 3:023178, 2021

    2021

  51. [58]

    Gravity-induced entanglement between two massive microscopic particles in curved space- time: I

    Chi Zhang and Fu-Wen Shu. Gravity-induced entanglement between two massive microscopic particles in curved space- time: I. the schwarzschild background.The European Physical Journal C, 84:256, 2024

    2024

  52. [59]

    Gravity-induced entanglement between two massive microscopic particles in curved space- time: Ii

    Chi Zhang and Fu-Wen Shu. Gravity-induced entanglement between two massive microscopic particles in curved space- time: Ii. friedmann–lemaˆıtre–robertson–walker universe. The European Physical Journal C, 84:500, 2024

    2024

  53. [60]

    What gravity mediated entanglement can really tell us about quantum grav- ity

    Eduardo Mart ´ın-Mart´ınez and T Rick Perche. What gravity mediated entanglement can really tell us about quantum grav- ity. Physical Review D, 108(10):L101702, 2023

    2023

  54. [61]

    Morley, Igor Pikovski, and M

    Yue Ma, Thomas Guff, Gavin W. Morley, Igor Pikovski, and M. S. Kim. Limits on inference of gravitational entanglement. Physical Review Research, 4:013024, 2022

    2022

  55. [62]

    Gollapudi, M

    Praveer K. Gollapudi, M. Kemal D ¨oner, and Andr´e Großardt. State swapping via semiclassical gravity. Physical Review A, 111:012208, 2025

    2025

  56. [63]

    Dynamics and entanglement in quantum and quantum-classical systems: Lessons for gravity

    Viqar Husain, Irfan Javed, and Suprit Singh. Dynamics and entanglement in quantum and quantum-classical systems: Lessons for gravity. Physical Review Letters, 129:111302, 2022

    2022

  57. [64]

    Testing whether gravity acts as a quantum entity when measured

    Farhan Hanif, Debarshi Das, Jonathan Halliwell, Dipankar Home, Anupam Mazumdar, Hendrik Ulbricht, and Sougato Bose. Testing whether gravity acts as a quantum entity when measured. Physical Review Letters, 133:180201, 2024

    2024

  58. [65]

    Quantum entanglement

    Ryszard Horodecki, Paweł Horodecki, Michał Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki. Quantum entanglement. Reviews of modern physics, 81(2):865–942, 2009

    2009

  59. [66]

    Decoherence effects in non- classicality tests of gravity

    Simone Rijavec, Matteo Carlesso, Angelo Bassi, Vlatko Ve- dral, and Chiara Marletto. Decoherence effects in non- classicality tests of gravity. New Journal of Physics, 23(4):043040, 2021

    2021

  60. [67]

    When zeh meets feynman: How to avoid the appearance of a classical world in gravity experiments

    Markus Aspelmeyer. When zeh meets feynman: How to avoid the appearance of a classical world in gravity experiments. In From Quantum to Classical: Essays in Honour of H.-Dieter Zeh, pages 85–95. Springer, 2022

    2022

  61. [68]

    Pedernales, and Martin B

    Ludovico Lami, Julen S. Pedernales, and Martin B. Plenio. 16 Testing the quantumness of gravity without entanglement. Phys. Rev. X, 14:021022, May 2024

    2024

  62. [69]

    Signatures of the quan- tum nature of gravity in the differential motion of two masses

    Animesh Datta and Haixing Miao. Signatures of the quan- tum nature of gravity in the differential motion of two masses. Quantum Science and Technology, 6:045014, 2021

    2021

  63. [70]

    Realization of a complete stern-gerlach interferometer: To- ward a test of quantum gravity

    Yair Margalit, Or Dobkowski, Zhifan Zhou, Omer Amit, Yonathan Japha, Samuel Moukouri, Daniel Rohrlich, Anupam Mazumdar, Sougato Bose, Carsten Henkel, and Ron Folman. Realization of a complete stern-gerlach interferometer: To- ward a test of quantum gravity. Science Advances, 7...

    2021

  64. [71]

    Distinguishable con- sequence of classical gravity on quantum matter

    Serhii Kryhin and Vivishek Sudhir. Distinguishable con- sequence of classical gravity on quantum matter. Physical Review Letters, 134(6):061501, 2025

    2025

  65. [72]

    Non- gaussianity as a signature of a quantum theory of gravity.PRX Quantum, 2(1):010325, 2021

    Richard Howl, Vlatko Vedral, Devang Naik, Marios Christodoulou, Carlo Rovelli, and Aditya Iyer. Non- gaussianity as a signature of a quantum theory of gravity.PRX Quantum, 2(1):010325, 2021

    2021

  66. [73]

    Quantum superposition of molecules beyond 25 kda

    Yaakov Y Fein, Philipp Geyer, Patrick Zwick, Filip Kiałka, Sebastian Pedalino, Marcel Mayor, Stefan Gerlich, and Markus Arndt. Quantum superposition of molecules beyond 25 kda. Nature Physics, 15(12):1242–1245, 2019

    2019

  67. [74]

    X. Ma, J. J. Viennot, S. Kotler, J. D. Teufel, and K. W. Lehnert. Non-classical energy squeezing of a macroscopic mechanical oscillator. Nature Physics, 17:322, 2021

    2021

  68. [75]

    Schr ¨odinger cat states of a 16-microgram mechanical oscillator

    Marius Bild, Matteo Fadel, Yu Yang, Uwe von L ¨upke, Phillip Martin, Alessandro Bruno, and Yiwen Chu. Schr ¨odinger cat states of a 16-microgram mechanical oscillator. Science, 380:274, 2023

    2023

  69. [76]

    Bahrami, M

    M. Bahrami, M. Paternostro, A. Bassi, and H. Ulbricht. Pro- posal for a noninterferometric test of collapse models in op- tomechanical systems. Physical Review Letters, 112:210404, 2014

    2014

  70. [77]

    Testing spontaneous wave-function collapse models on classical mechanical oscillators

    Lajos Di ´osi. Testing spontaneous wave-function collapse models on classical mechanical oscillators. Physical Review Letters, 114:050403, 2015

    2015

  71. [78]

    Vinante, R

    A. Vinante, R. Mezzena, P. Falferi, M. Carlesso, and A. Bassi. Improved noninterferometric test of collapse models using ul- tracold cantilevers. Physical Review Letters, 119:110401, 2017

    2017

  72. [79]

    Bounds on collapse models from cold-atom exper- iments

    Marco Bilardello, Sandro Donadi, Andrea Vinante, and An- gelo Bassi. Bounds on collapse models from cold-atom exper- iments. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, 462:764–782, 2016

    2016

  73. [80]

    Collapse-induced orientational localization of rigid rotors

    Bj ¨orn Schrinski, Benjamin A Stickler, and Klaus Hornberger. Collapse-induced orientational localization of rigid rotors. Journal of the Optical Society of America B, 34(6):C1–C7, 2017

    2017

  74. [81]

    Noninterferometric rotational test of the continuous spontaneous localization model: En- hancement of the collapse noise through shape optimization

    Davide Giordano Ario Altamura, Matteo Carlesso, Sandro Donadi, and Angelo Bassi. Noninterferometric rotational test of the continuous spontaneous localization model: En- hancement of the collapse noise through shape optimization. Physical Review A, 109(6):062212, 2024

    2024

  75. [82]

    Novel csl bounds from the noise-induced radiation emission from atoms

    Sandro Donadi, Kristian Piscicchia, Raffaele Del Grande, Catalina Curceanu, Matthias Laubenstein, and Angelo Bassi. Novel csl bounds from the noise-induced radiation emission from atoms. The European Physical Journal C, 81:1–10, 2021

    2021

  76. [83]

    Underground test of gravity-related wave function collapse

    Sandro Donadi, Kristian Piscicchia, Catalina Curceanu, Lajos Di´osi, Matthias Laubenstein, and Angelo Bassi. Underground test of gravity-related wave function collapse. Nature Physics, 17(1):74–78, 2021

    2021

  77. [85]

    Present status and future challenges of non-interferometric tests of collapse models

    Matteo Carlesso, Sandro Donadi, Luca Ferialdi, Mauro Pater- nostro, Hendrik Ulbricht, and Angelo Bassi. Present status and future challenges of non-interferometric tests of collapse models. Nature Physics, 18(3):243–250, 2022

    2022

  78. [86]

    Col- lapse dynamics are diffusive

    Sandro Donadi, Luca Ferialdi, and Angelo Bassi. Col- lapse dynamics are diffusive. Physical Review Letters, 130(23):230202, 2023

    2023

  79. [87]

    Stochastic quantum dynamics and relativity

    Nicolas Gisin. Stochastic quantum dynamics and relativity. Helv. Phys. Acta, 62(4):363–371, 1989

    1989

  80. [88]

    Weinberg’s nonlinear quantum mechan- ics and the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox

    Joseph Polchinski. Weinberg’s nonlinear quantum mechan- ics and the einstein-podolsky-rosen paradox. Physical Review Letters, 66(4):397, 1991

    1991

  81. [89]

    Testing quantum mechanics

    Steven Weinberg. Testing quantum mechanics. Annals of Physics, 194(2):336–386, 1989

    1989

  82. [90]

    Precision tests of quantum mechanics

    Steven Weinberg. Precision tests of quantum mechanics. Physical Review Letters, 62(5):485, 1989

    1989

  83. [91]

    A classical channel model for gravitational decoherence

    D Kafri, JM Taylor, and GJ Milburn. A classical channel model for gravitational decoherence. New Journal of Physics, 16(6):065020, 2014

    2014

  84. [92]

    Gravitationally induced decoherence vs space-time diffusion: testing the quantum nature of gravity

    Jonathan Oppenheim, Carlo Sparaciari, Barbara ˇSoda, and Zachary Weller-Davies. Gravitationally induced decoherence vs space-time diffusion: testing the quantum nature of gravity. Nature Communications, 14(1):7910, 2023

    2023

  85. [93]

    Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations

    Lajos Di ´osi. Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations. Physical Review A, 40(3):1165, 1989

    1989

  86. [94]

    Any consistent coupling between classical gravity and quan- tum matter is fundamentally irreversible

    Thomas D Galley, Flaminia Giacomini, and John H Selby. Any consistent coupling between classical gravity and quan- tum matter is fundamentally irreversible. Quantum, 7:1142, 2023

    2023

  87. [95]

    L. Di ´osi. Gravitation and quantum-mechanical localization of macro-objects. Physics Letters A, 105(4-5):199–202, 1984

    1984

  88. [96]

    The schr¨odinger–newton equation and its foun- dations

    Bahrami Mohammad, Großardt Andr ´e, Donadi Sandro, and Bassi Angelo. The schr¨odinger–newton equation and its foun- dations. New Journal of Physics, 16(11):115007, 2014

    2014

  89. [97]

    On the generators of quantum dynami- cal semigroups

    Goran Lindblad. On the generators of quantum dynami- cal semigroups. Communications in mathematical physics, 48:119–130, 1976

    1976

  90. [98]

    Completely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level systems

    Vittorio Gorini, Andrzej Kossakowski, and Ennackal Chandy George Sudarshan. Completely positive dynamical semigroups of n-level systems. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 17(5):821–825, 1976

    1976

  91. [99]

    Role of gravity in the collapse of a wave function: A probe into the di´osi-penrose model

    Bahrami Mohammad, Smirne Andrea, and Bassi Angelo. Role of gravity in the collapse of a wave function: A probe into the di´osi-penrose model. Physical Review A, 90(6):062105, 2014

    2014

  92. [100]

    Linear-friction many-body equation for dissipative spontaneous wave-function collapse

    Giovanni Di Bartolomeo, Matteo Carlesso, Kristian Pisci- cchia, Catalina Curceanu, Maaneli Derakhshani, and Lajos Di´osi. Linear-friction many-body equation for dissipative spontaneous wave-function collapse. Physical Review A, 108(1):012202, 2023

    2023

  93. [101]

    Gravitational interaction through a feedback mechanism

    Jos ´e Luis Gaona-Reyes, Matteo Carlesso, and Angelo Bassi. Gravitational interaction through a feedback mechanism. Physical Review D, 103(5):056011, 2021

    2021

  94. [102]

    Separability criterion for density matrices

    Asher Peres. Separability criterion for density matrices. Physical Review Letters, 77(8):1413, 1996

    1996

  95. [103]

    Gaussian states in continuous variable quantum information

    Alessandro Ferraro, Stefano Olivares, and Matteo GA Paris. Gaussian states in continuous variable quantum information. arXiv preprint quant-ph/0503237, 2005

    2005 arXiv

  96. [104]

    Peres-horodecki separability criterion for continuous variable systems

    Rajiah Simon. Peres-horodecki separability criterion for continuous variable systems. Physical Review Letters, 84(12):2726, 2000

    2000

  97. [105]

    A noise inequality for classical forces

    Dvir Kafri and JM Taylor. A noise inequality for classical forces. arXiv preprint arXiv:1311.4558, 2013. 17

    2013 arXiv

  98. [106]

    Reconstructing the dynamics of a movable mirror in a detuned optical cavity

    Mauro Paternostro, Sylvain Gigan, Myung Shik Kim, Florian Blaser, HR B ¨ohm, and Markus Aspelmeyer. Reconstructing the dynamics of a movable mirror in a detuned optical cavity. New Journal of Physics, 8(6):107, 2006

    2006

  99. [107]

    Vinante, M

    A. Vinante, M. Carlesso, A. Bassi, A. Chiasera, S. Varas, P. Falferi, B. Margesin, R. Mezzena, and H. Ulbricht. Nar- rowing the parameter space of collapse models with ultracold layered force sensors. Physical Review Letters, 125(10), sep 2020

    2020

  100. [108]

    Vinante, A

    A. Vinante, A. Pontin, M. Rashid, P. Barker, M. Toros, and H. Ulbricht. Testing collapse models with levitated nanopar- ticles: Detection challenge. Physical review A, 100:012119, 2019

    2019

  101. [109]

    Braginsky and V .I

    V .B. Braginsky and V .I. Panov. Verification of the equivalence of inertial and gravitational mass.Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 34:463, 1972

    1972

  102. [110]

    Bantel and R.D

    M.K. Bantel and R.D. Newman. High precision measure- ment of torsion fiber internal friction at cryogenic tempera- tures. Journal of Alloys and Compounds, 310:233, 2000

    2000

  103. [111]

    A measurement of g with a cryogenic torsion pen- dulum

    Riley Newman, Michael Bantel, Eric Berg, and William Cross. A measurement of g with a cryogenic torsion pen- dulum. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, 372:20140025, 2014

    2014

  104. [112]

    Fleischer, M.P

    S.M. Fleischer, M.P. Ross, K. Venkateswara, C.A. Hagedorn, E.A. Shaw, E. Swanson, B.R. Heckel, and J.H. Gundlach. A cryogenic torsion balance using a liquid-cryogen free, ultra- low vibration cryostat. Review of Scientific Instruments, 93:064505, 2022

    2022

  105. [113]

    Braginsky, C.M

    V .B. Braginsky, C.M. Caves, and K.S. Thorne. Laboratory experiments to test relativistic gravity. Physical Review D, 15:2047, 1977

    1977

  106. [114]

    McGuigan, C.C

    D.F. McGuigan, C.C. Lam, R.Q. Gram, A.W. Hoffman, D.H. Douglass, and H. W. Gutche. Measurements of the mechanical Q of single-crystal silicon at low temperatures.Journal of Low Temperature Physics, 30:621, 1978

    1978

  107. [115]

    Nano-acoustic resonator with ultralong phonon lifetime

    Gregory S MacCabe, Hengjiang Ren, Jie Luo, Justin D Cohen, Hengyun Zhou, Alp Sipahigil, Mohammad Mirhosseini, and Oskar Painter. Nano-acoustic resonator with ultralong phonon lifetime. Science, 370:840, 2020

    2020

  108. [116]

    Sub- femto-g free fall for space-based gravitational wave obser- vatories: Lisa pathfinder results

    Michele Armano, Heather Audley, Gerard Auger, Jonathon T Baird, Massimo Bassan, Pierre Binetruy, Michael Born, Daniele Bortoluzzi, Nico Brandt, Maria Caleno, et al. Sub- femto-g free fall for space-based gravitational wave obser- vatories: Lisa pathfinder results. Physical rev...

    2016

  109. [117]

    Ganapathy and et al

    D. Ganapathy and et al. Broadband quantum enhancement of the ligo detectors with frequency-dependent squeezing. Physical Review X, 47:041021, 2023

    2023

  110. [118]

    Superconducting tunable-diaphragm transducer for sensitive acceleration measurements

    Ho Jung Paik. Superconducting tunable-diaphragm transducer for sensitive acceleration measurements. Journal of Applied Physics, 47:1168, 1976

    1976

  111. [119]

    Vinante, P

    A. Vinante, P. Falferi, G. Gasbarri, A. Setter, C. Timber- lake, and H. Ulbricht. Ultralow mechanical damping with meissner-levitated ferromagnetic microparticles. Physical Review Applied, 13:064027, 2020

    2020

  112. [120]

    Hansen, Peter Asenbaum, Martin Zemlicka, Kevin Uhl, and Reinhold Kleiner

    Philip Schmidt, Remi Claessen, Gerard Higgins, Joachim Hofer, Jannek J. Hansen, Peter Asenbaum, Martin Zemlicka, Kevin Uhl, and Reinhold Kleiner. Remote sensing of a lev- itated superconductor with a flux-tunable microwave cavity. Physical Review Applied, 22:014078, 2024

    2024

  113. [121]

    Kumar, S

    P. Kumar, S. Sendelbach, M.A. Beck, J.W. Freeland, Zhe Wang, Hui Wang, Clare C. Yu, R.Q. Wu, D.P. Pappas, and R. McDermott. Origin and reduction of 1/f magnetic flux noise in superconducting devices. Physical Review Applied, 6:041001, 2016

    2016

  114. [122]

    Levitated ferromag- netic magnetometer with energy resolution well below ℏ

    Felix Ahrens, Wei Ji, Dmitry Budker, Chris Timberlake, Hen- drik Ulbricht, and Andrea Vinante. Levitated ferromag- netic magnetometer with energy resolution well below ℏ. arXiv:2401.03774, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  115. [123]

    Tabletop experiments for quantum gravity: a user’s manual

    Daniel Carney, Philip CE Stamp, and Jacob M Taylor. Tabletop experiments for quantum gravity: a user’s manual. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 36(3):034001, 2019

    2019

  116. [124]

    Massive quantum systems as interfaces of quantum mechanics and gravity

    Sougato Bose, Ivette Fuentes, Andrew A Geraci, Saba Mehsar Khan, Sofia Qvarfort, Markus Rademacher, Muddassar Rashid, Marko Toroˇs, Hendrik Ulbricht, and Clara C Wanjura. Massive quantum systems as interfaces of quantum mechanics and gravity. Reviews of Modern Physics, 97(1):0...

    2025

  117. [125]

    The weyl representa- tion in classical and quantum mechanics

    Alfredo M Ozorio De Almeida. The weyl representa- tion in classical and quantum mechanics. Physics reports, 295(6):265–342, 1998

    1998

  118. [126]

    Symmetries and conserved quantities in lindblad master equations

    Victor V Albert and Liang Jiang. Symmetries and conserved quantities in lindblad master equations. Physical Review A, 89(2):022118, 2014

    2014

  119. [127]

    Covariant quantum markovian evolu- tions

    Alexander S Holevo. Covariant quantum markovian evolu- tions. Journal of Mathematical Physics, 37(4):1812–1832, 1996

    1996

  120. [128]

    Gravity is not a pairwise local classi- cal channel

    Natacha Altamirano, Paulina Corona-Ugalde, Robert B Mann, and Magdalena Zych. Gravity is not a pairwise local classi- cal channel. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 35(14):145005, 2018

    2018

  121. [129]

    Measurement of gravitational coupling between millimetre-sized masses

    Tobias Westphal, Hans Hepach, Jeremias Pfaff, and Markus Aspelmeyer. Measurement of gravitational coupling between millimetre-sized masses. Nature, 591(7849):225–228, 2021

    2021

  122. [130]

    Measuring gravity with mil- ligram levitated masses

    Tim M Fuchs, Dennis G Uitenbroek, Jaimy Plugge, Noud van Halteren, Jean-Paul van Soest, Andrea Vinante, Hendrik Ul- bricht, and Tjerk H Oosterkamp. Measuring gravity with mil- ligram levitated masses. Science Advances, 10(8):eadk2949, 2024

    2024

  123. [131]

    Submil- limeter tests of the gravitational inverse-square law

    Charles D Hoyle, DJ Kapner, Blayne R Heckel, EG Adel- berger, JH Gundlach, U Schmidt, and HE Swanson. Submil- limeter tests of the gravitational inverse-square law. Physical Review D, 70(4):042004, 2004

    2004

  124. [132]

    Collapse models with non-white noises

    Stephen L Adler and Angelo Bassi. Collapse models with non-white noises. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 40(50):15083, 2007

    2007

  125. [133]

    (6), via classical exper- iments assessing the validity of Newton’s 1/r2 gravitational attraction [127–129]

    One can take an alternative route and allow for such terms; this would open a new way to test Eq. (6), via classical exper- iments assessing the validity of Newton’s 1/r2 gravitational attraction [127–129]

  126. [134]

    (11) and those in the literature

    Appendices C and D contain further analysis on symmetries and the relation between Eq. (11) and those in the literature

  127. [135]

    In Appendix E we discuss the case where the coefficients γij do depend on the trapping frequencies, showing that it is still possible identify a suitable experimental setup testing the gravitational bound

  128. [136]

    equation (5) of [130] with the choice ξ = i

    C.f. equation (5) of [130] with the choice ξ = i

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.