Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Bose-Marletto-Vedral experiment without observable spacetime superpositions

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Entanglement can arise from gravity with no spacetime superpositions, provided the matter–gravity coupling is non-locally tomographic.

desk verdict Sound toy-model proof that local tomography is load-bearing in the BMV argument; the gravity claim in the title outruns the actual content. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.21122 v2 pith:KFVSBK7N submitted 2025-06-26 quant-ph

Nicetu Tibau Vidal , Chiara Marletto , Vlatko Vedral , Giulio Chiribella This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords gravitationallyinducedentanglementBMVexperimentlocaltomographynon-locallytomographiccouplingssuperselectionrulesnon-Abeliananyonsfermionicparityclassical-anticlassicalbits
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

The BMV experiment aims to test whether gravity is quantum by checking whether two masses become entangled through gravitational interaction. This paper argues that the standard conclusion—that entanglement implies spacetime superpositions—rests on an extra assumption called local tomography, the requirement that a global state be reconstructible from local measurements. It then shows, through three toy models (fermions with parity superselection, non-Abelian anyons, and a bit–anti-bit theory), that a mediator which is locally classical—a single observable, no superpositions of its classical basis—can still generate entanglement between two quantum systems via system-local interactions. The common mechanism is a non-locally tomographic coupling, in which some global observables cannot be written as products of local ones. The paper concludes that if gravity couples to quantum matter in this way, the BMV experiment would not prove spacetime is in a superposition even if it observes entanglement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the non-locally tomographic coupling between a quantum sector and a constrained quantum sector. Local tomography is the property that every global observable of a bipartite system decomposes as a linear combination of tensor products of local observables; equivalently, the global state is fixed by local measurement statistics. In a constrained system—one with superselection rules or gauge invariance—the number of linearly independent local observables is smaller than $\dim^2$, so when two such systems are coupled the number of global observables can exceed the product of the local counts, $N_{AB} > N_A N_B$. That surplus creates hidden global observables that cannot be seen locally, and the paper's protocols act on those hidden degrees of freedom with system-local unitaries (fermion swap gates, anyonic braiding-style unitaries, or classical bit swaps) to generate entanglement. The three toy models—fermions with parity superselection, non-Abelian anyons, and the bit–anti-bit theory—are instances of this mechanism, each showing that a mediator with a single local observable and no local superpositions can still mediate entanglement.

What would settle it

Show from a concrete quantum-gravity model (for example, linearised quantum gravity or the canonical constraint structure of general relativity) that every gauge-invariant observable of the coupled matter–gravity system is a linear combination of products of local matter and gravity observables; that would restore local tomography, reinstate the General Witness Theorem, and directly falsify the paper's claim that a locally classical spacetime can mediate entanglement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that entanglement generation in a BMV-type protocol does not require the mediator to be in a superposition of classically distinguishable states, provided the coupling between matter and mediator violates local tomography. In the fermionic model, five spinless modes with the parity superselection rule (only even-degree products of fermionic operators are physical observables) are used: modes 1 and 2 encode the first qubit, modes 4 and 5 the second, and mode 3 is the mediator, whose only local observable is the parity $T_3$. Starting from a separable state of the two qubits and the mediator in a definite occupation state, the system-local swap gates $S_{23}S_{34}S_{23}$ transform the matter sector into the maximally entangled state $\frac12(\hat f_1^\dagger+\hat f_4^\dagger)(\hat f_2^\dagger+\hat f_5^\dagger)|0\rangle$ after tracing out mode 3, while the mediator's reduced state remains a classical mixture or pure state throughout. The anyonic model goes further: the mediator's local state stays pure and unchanged, yet its fixed charge unlocks a boundary degree of freedom that carries the entanglement. The bit–anti-bit model shows the mediator can have arbitrarily many classical bits. In each case the matter–gravity coupling is non-locally tomographic: the global algebra contains observables such as $\hat f_1\hat f_4+\hat f_4^\dagger\hat f_1^\dagger$ that are not decomposable into products of local observables, which is what allows a locally classical system to transmit quantum correlations.

Load-bearing premise

The entire argument rests on the premise that gravity couples to quantum matter through a non-locally tomographic coupling—meaning the joint state of matter and spacetime contains information that no local observation can access—which the paper motivates from gauge constraints but never derives from a specific theory of gravity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A positive BMV result would no longer imply that spacetime is in a superposition: it would only imply that the matter–gravity coupling is non-locally tomographic, a strictly weaker conclusion.
  • The General Witness Theorem's no-entanglement-from-classical-mediator result holds only under local tomography; the paper's counterexamples show the theorem cannot be applied to gravity without first settling the tomography question.
  • Superselection rules, already forced on fermions by no-signalling, are enough to make a locally classical system a viable entanglement mediator, so the phenomenon is generic in constrained quantum theories.
  • A dynamical spacetime that is locally described by general relativity, and even one that stays pure when probed by classical matter, can in principle mediate entanglement; no gravitons or self-interfering spacetime are required.
  • The bit–anti-bit model removes the dimensionality limitation: the gravitational sector can have arbitrarily many classical degrees of freedom and still mediate entanglement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A decisive next step the paper does not take is to derive the non-locally tomographic algebra from a specific quantum-gravity model; if such a derivation fails and the matter–gravity algebra is locally tomographic, the BMV conclusion that entanglement implies spacetime superposition is restored.
  • The anyonic 'locally classical key' picture suggests an operational test: in a tabletop simulation of the swap circuits, one could verify that the mediator's local state is untouched while the matter sector becomes entangled, directly exhibiting the hidden boundary degree of freedom.
  • More broadly, the paper implies that the dichotomy 'classical vs quantum mediator' is too coarse: there is a third class—locally classical, globally non-tomographic—that is experimentally distinguishable from both a classical mediator (no entanglement) and a superposed quantum mediator (mediator exhibits coherences), and future BMV analyses should be designed to detect this middle case.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the Bose-Marletto-Vedral (BMV) gravitational entanglement argument implicitly assumes local tomography of the composite system formed by quantum matter and the gravitational mediator. It presents three toy models—fermionic modes with parity superselection, Ising anyons, and a bit/anti-bit theory—in which a mediator that is locally classical (no local superpositions, a single local observable) can nevertheless mediate entanglement between two quantum systems through system-local unitaries, because the coupling is non-locally tomographic. The authors conclude that local tomography is an extra assumption in BMV-type arguments, and that non-locally tomographic gravity-matter couplings could allow entanglement generation without observable spacetime superpositions.

Significance. If the physical premise were established, this would be a valuable contribution: it identifies local tomography as a hidden structural assumption in the BMV argument and shows, with explicit self-contained calculations, that GWT-type no-entanglement conclusions depend on that assumption. I checked the fermionic calculation in Eqs. (8)-(12), the anyonic transformations in Eqs. (34)-(41), and the bit-swap sequence in Eq. (45); the algebraic steps are internally consistent. The bit/anti-bit model has the attractive feature of allowing arbitrarily many classical degrees of freedom in the mediator. However, the paper's central claim about gravity itself rests on an unproven premise: that the coupling of gravity to quantum matter is non-locally tomographic. The paper's own Discussion explicitly disclaims a realistic model, so the abstract and title overstate what the toy models establish.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II.A and Section IV; Abstract] The physical bridge to gravity is asserted, not derived. The argument that gravity-matter coupling is non-locally tomographic rests on two analogies: that a classical theory can be regarded as a strongly constrained quantum theory, and that gauge theories produce superselection rules. Section II.A concludes only that the authors believe it is reasonable to expect such couplings, and Section IV states: 'The results presented in our work are not an attempt to provide a realistic model of gravity-matter interaction.' In the absence of a concrete derivation, or at least a concrete minimally structured example from linearized gravity or a gauge-fixed gravitational theory, the Abstract's claim that 'entanglement can be generated by gravity' is not established by the three toy models. The toy models demonstrate that non-locally tomographic couplings can generate entanglement with locally classical mediators; they do not demonstrate that gravity possesses such couplings. The title and Abstract should be qualified to the conditional claim, or the physical premise should be derived.
  2. [Section III.A, Eqs. (7)-(8)] The fermionic protocol uses swap gates S23 and S34 as 'system local unitaries', but the paper does not justify that these finite swap unitaries can be generated by the kind of local interaction assumed in the BMV scenario. The BMV setup normally considers interactions mediated by local couplings such as H_{Q1M} + H_{MQ2}, and the relevant notion of locality is dynamical. A discrete swap between a matter mode and a mediator mode may be allowed by the authors' definition, but the connection to the BMV local-interaction assumption should be made explicit. If the authors intend the information-theoretic point to be independent of dynamical generation, they should say so clearly.
  3. [Section III.B, Eqs. (16)-(17)] The matrices P_L→R and P_C→R are called 3×3 unitary matrices, but each has an identically zero middle row and column and is therefore not invertible on C^3. The subsequent use of (P_C→R)^{-1} in the definition of P_L→C is ill-defined as written. The calculation is salvageable because all physical states have labels h1, h2, t restricted to {0,2}; on that two-dimensional subspace the relevant 2×2 blocks are unitary. The paper should state this restriction explicitly and avoid writing formal inverses of singular matrices.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section II.A] There is a typo in the caption of Figure 2: 'diagrmaatic' should be 'diagrammatic'.
  2. [Section III.C, Eq. (44)] The shorthand '≡ (|00>+|11>)/√2 |00> (|00>+|11>)/√2' drops the subsystem labels and ordering. Since the protocol depends on the order A1 B1 B2 B3 B4 A2, the labels should be kept throughout the derivation to avoid ambiguity.
  3. [Section IV] The text refers to 'linear quantum gravity (LQG)', but LQG is standardly an abbreviation for loop quantum gravity. The cited references concern linearized quantum gravity, so the abbreviation is confusing and should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the toy-model entanglement calculations are explicit and self-contained, and the paper's main weakness is an unsupported physical premise about gravity-matter coupling, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The entanglement-generation calculations in all three toy models are performed by direct algebraic computation from stated rules: the fermionic protocol via Eqs. (3)-(12), the anyonic protocol via Eqs. (26)-(41), and the bit/anti-bit protocol via Eqs. (44)-(46). No parameter is fitted, and no 'prediction' is an input renamed as an output; each model is a constructive existence proof. The paper does rely on prior work for ingredients: the definition of local classicality from Refs. [4,9] (which includes co-author Marletto/Vedral in [4]), the fermionic SSR and partial-trace formalism from Refs. [44,45,50] (including co-author Vidal), and the bit/anti-bit theory from Ref. [76] (co-author Chiribella). These citations are, however, standard mathematical frameworks or explicitly disclosed toy theories; they do not themselves assert the target result (entanglement generation by a locally classical mediator), and the calculations that yield that result are shown in the paper. The more serious issue is the bridge to gravity: Section II.A asserts, rather than derives, that gravity-matter coupling is non-locally tomographic ('We believe it is reasonable to expect that the coupling of quantum matter with gravity can be modelled as a gauge field theory'), and Section IV disclaims a realistic model ('The results presented in our work are not an attempt to provide a realistic model of gravity-matter interaction'). This is a missing physical derivation, not a circular one. The Discussion's statement that a non-locally tomographic coupling 'by definition' classifies spacetime as non-classical is an explicit definitional classification, not a disguised derivation. No circular step can be exhibited without speculation, so the circularity score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical free parameters are fitted. The central demonstration uses explicit fixed states and gates. The main unproved input is the physical plausibility of non-locally tomographic couplings for gravity-matter, which the paper argues for by analogy, not by derivation.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Parity superselection rule restricts physical fermionic observables to even polynomials in creation and annihilation operators.
    Used in Section III A; justified by no-signalling or microcausality via Refs [44,45], not derived in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Classical theory of gravity can be approximated as a strongly constrained quantum theory, so coupling to matter may be non-locally tomographic.
    Invoked in Section II.A and the Discussion to connect toy models to gravity; speculative and not derived.
  • standard math Non-Abelian Ising anyon composition rules and F-matrices (Eqs. 14-17) correctly describe the state space and partial traces.
    Taken from Refs [55-58,62]; accepted formalism in the anyon literature.
  • standard math Bit anti-bit composition rules from Chiribella et al. [76] are valid and the allowed states are exactly those described in Section III C.
    The model is imported from prior work; used as an ingredient in the third protocol.
  • ad hoc to paper System-local unitaries, defined as unitaries that act on Q1M or MQ2 and leave the other sector's charges invariant, faithfully represent local interactions.
    This is the notion of locality used throughout; it is algebraic rather than derived from spacetime locality.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bose-Marletto-Vedral experiment without observable spacetime superpositions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KFVSBK7N

@misc{pith2026250621122,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bose-Marletto-Vedral experiment without observable spacetime superpositions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KFVSBK7N}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.21122}
}
read the original abstract

Reconciling quantum mechanics and general relativity remains one of the most profound challenges in modern physics. The BMV (Bose-Marletto-Vedral) experiment can assess the quantum nature of gravity by testing whether gravitational interactions can generate entanglement between quantum systems. In this work, we show that entanglement can be generated by gravity without requiring spacetime superpositions or quantum spacetime degrees of freedom by using mediators that do not satisfy the usual property of local tomography when coupling to quantum matter. Specifically, we showcase how entanglement can be generated using three distinct toy models that display non-locally tomographic couplings between quantum matter and a locally classical gravitational mediator. These models include (i) fermionic systems with the parity superselection rule, (ii) non-Abelian anyonic systems, and (iii) a novel bit anti-bit model. Our results demonstrate a crucial point: a gravitational mediator which does not exhibit superpositions of its classical basis but still qualifies as non-classical via non-locally tomographic coupling mechanisms can generate entanglement through local interactions. This work also underscores the importance of relaxing local tomography in exploring the quantum-gravitational interface. It provides a novel perspective on the role of spacetime degrees of freedom in entanglement generation through local interactions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.21122 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Two masses each in a position superposition can be [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Figure displaying the entanglement mediation using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Diagrammatic and Dirac representations of Ising [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Diagram displaying the second toy model setup using [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Diagram displaying how bits and anti-bits can gen [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

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. Gravity-mediated entanglement via infinite-dimensional systems

    quant-ph 2025-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Any classical mediator, modeled as a commutative unital C*-algebra, cannot generate entanglement between two initially independent quantum systems, generalizing prior finite-dimensional no-go results to infinite dimensions.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

77 extracted references · 67 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Reviews of Modern Physics 97, 015006 (2025), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2025

  2. [2]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Physical Review Letters119, 240402 (2017), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2017

  3. [3]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, npj Quantum Information3, 1 (2017), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Physical Review D102, 086012 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroˇ s, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. Kim, and G. Milburn, Physical Review Letters119, 240401 (2017), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez and T

    E. Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez and T. R. Perche, Physical Review D108, L101702 (2023), publisher: American Physical Society

    work page 2023

  7. [7]

    Christodoulou, A

    M. Christodoulou, A. Di Biagio, M. Aspelmeyer, C. Brukner, C. Rovelli, and R. Howl, Physical Review Letters130, 100202 (2023), publisher: American Physi- cal Society

    work page 2023

  8. [8]

    Bengyat, A

    O. Bengyat, A. Di Biagio, M. Aspelmeyer, and M. Christodoulou, Physical Review D110, 056046 (2024), publisher: American Physical Society. 13

    work page 2024

Show all 77 references
  1. [9]

    T. D. Galley, F. Giacomini, and J. H. Selby, Quantum7, 1142 (2023), publisher: Verein zur F¨ orderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften

    2023

  2. [10]

    Krisnanda, G

    T. Krisnanda, G. Y. Tham, M. Paternostro, and T. Pa- terek, npj Quantum Information6, 1 (2020), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2020

  3. [11]

    Di Pietra, F

    G. Di Pietra, F. Piacentini, E. Bernardi, E. Moreva, C. Napoli, I. P. Degiovanni, M. Genovese, V. Vedral, and C. Marletto, arXiv preprint2410.19601(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Di Pietra, V

    G. Di Pietra, V. Vedral, and C. Marletto, arXiv preprint 2411.01285(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Weber and V

    A. Weber and V. Vedral, arXiv preprint2406.14334 (2024)

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Kent, arXiv preprint2405.20514(2024)

    A. Kent, arXiv preprint2405.20514(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Kent, arXiv preprint2405.20506(2024)

    A. Kent, arXiv preprint2405.20506(2024)

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Kent and D

    A. Kent and D. Pital´ ua-Garc\’ıa, Phys. Rev. D104, 126030 (2021), eprint: 2109.02616

    2021 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Hidaka, S

    Y. Hidaka, S. Iso, and K. Shimada, Phys. Rev. D107, 085003 (2023), eprint: 2211.09441

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Zhang and F.-W

    C. Zhang and F.-W. Shu, Phys. Rev. D111, 084060 (2025), eprint: 2504.10543

    2025 arXiv

  11. [19]

    P. Li, Y. Ling, and Z. Yu, Phys. Rev. D107, 064054 (2023), eprint: 2210.17259

    2023 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. Mari, S. Zippilli, and D. Vitali, arXiv preprint 2504.05998(2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Yant and M

    J. Yant and M. Blencowe, arXiv preprint2503.20855 (2025)

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    L. M. van Manen, M. K. D¨ oner, and A. Großardt, arXiv preprint2503.20993(2025)

    2025

  15. [23]

    T. Feng, V. Vedral, and C. Marletto, arXiv preprint 2503.19774(2025)

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Schut, A

    M. Schut, A. Grinin, A. Dana, S. Bose, A. Geraci, and A. Mazumdar, Physical Review Research5, 043170 (2023), publisher: American Physical Society

    2023

  17. [25]

    E. C. Telali, T. R. Perche, and E. Mart\’ın-Mart\’ınez, Phys. Rev. D111, 085005 (2025), eprint: 2412.16288

    2025 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Streltsov,Quantum control of levitated systems for fundamental tests of gravity, PhD Thesis, Ulm U

    K. Streltsov,Quantum control of levitated systems for fundamental tests of gravity, PhD Thesis, Ulm U. (2024)

    2024

  19. [27]

    Hardy, inComputation, Logic, Games, and Quantum Foundations

    L. Hardy, inComputation, Logic, Games, and Quantum Foundations. The Many Facets of Samson Abramsky: Es- says Dedicated to Samson Abramsky on the Occasion of His 60th Birthday, edited by B. Coecke, L. Ong, and P. Panangaden (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2013) pp. 83–106

    2013

  20. [28]

    Hardy, Fundam

    L. Hardy, Fundam. Theor. Phys.181, 223 (2016), eprint: 1303.1538

    2016 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Hardy, arXiv preprintquant-ph/0101012(2001)

    L. Hardy, arXiv preprintquant-ph/0101012(2001)

    2001

  22. [30]

    G. M. D’Ariano, F. Manessi, P. Perinotti, and A. Tosini, Europhysics Letters107, 20009 (2014), publisher: EDP Sciences, IOP Publishing and Societ` a Italiana di Fisica

    2014

  23. [31]

    Barnum, J

    H. Barnum, J. Barrett, M. Leifer, and A. Wilce, Physical Review Letters99, 240501 (2007), publisher: American Physical Society

    2007

  24. [32]

    Barrett, Physical Review A75, 032304 (2007), pub- lisher: American Physical Society

    J. Barrett, Physical Review A75, 032304 (2007), pub- lisher: American Physical Society

    2007

  25. [33]

    Araki, Communications in Mathematical Physics75, 1 (1980)

    H. Araki, Communications in Mathematical Physics75, 1 (1980)

    1980

  26. [34]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Phys- ical Review A81, 062348 (2010), publisher: American Physical Society

    2010

  27. [35]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Phys- ical Review A84, 012311 (2011), publisher: American Physical Society

    2011

  28. [36]

    Chiribella, Symmetry13, 1985 (2021), number: 11 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    G. Chiribella, Symmetry13, 1985 (2021), number: 11 Publisher: Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute

    2021

  29. [37]

    Masanes and M

    L. Masanes and M. P. M¨ uller, New Journal of Physics 13, 063001 (2011)

    2011

  30. [38]

    Masanes, M

    L. Masanes, M. P. M¨ uller, R. Augusiak, and D. P´ erez- Garc ´ ıa, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, 16373 (2013), publisher: Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences

    2013

  31. [39]

    Barnum, M

    H. Barnum, M. P. M¨ uller, and C. Ududec, New Journal of Physics16, 123029 (2014), publisher: IOP Publishing

    2014

  32. [40]

    Wilce, Quantum3, 158 (2019), publisher: Verein zur F¨ orderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quan- tenwissenschaften

    A. Wilce, Quantum3, 158 (2019), publisher: Verein zur F¨ orderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quan- tenwissenschaften

    2019

  33. [41]

    J. H. Selby, C. M. Scandolo, and B. Coecke, Quantum 5, 445 (2021), publisher: Verein zur F¨ orderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften

    2021

  34. [42]

    Dakic and C

    B. Dakic and C. Brukner, inDeep Beauty: Understanding the Quantum World through Mathematical Innovation, edited by H. Halvorson (Cambridge University Press,

  35. [43]

    G. M. D’Ariano, F. Manessi, P. Perinotti, and A. Tosini, International Journal of Modern Physics A29, 1430025 (2014), publisher: World Scientific Publishing Co

    2014

  36. [44]

    N. T. Vidal, V. Vedral, and C. Marletto, A VS Quantum Science4, 013802 (2022), publisher: American Institute of Physics Inc

    2022

  37. [45]

    N. T. Vidal, M. L. Bera, A. Riera, M. Lewenstein, and M. N. Bera, Phys. Rev. A104, 032411 (2021), publisher: American Physical Society

    2021

  38. [46]

    T. N. Sherry and E. C. G. Sudarshan, Physical Review D 18, 4580 (1978), publisher: American Physical Society

    1978

  39. [47]

    Giesel, Int

    K. Giesel, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A23, 1190 (2008)

    2008

  40. [48]

    Chataignier, Physical Review D101, 086001 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society

    L. Chataignier, Physical Review D101, 086001 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society

    2020

  41. [49]

    G. C. Wick, A. S. Wightman, and E. P. Wigner, Phys. Rev.101(1952)

    1952

  42. [50]

    Friis, New Journal of Physics18, 033014 (2016), pub- lisher: IOP Publishing

    N. Friis, New Journal of Physics18, 033014 (2016), pub- lisher: IOP Publishing

    2016

  43. [51]

    Friis, A

    N. Friis, A. R. Lee, and D. E. Bruschi, Physical Review A 87, 022338 (2013), publisher: American Physical Society

    2013

  44. [52]

    G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Lettere al Nuovo Cimento (1971-1985)27, 293 (1980)

    1980

  45. [53]

    G. C. Ghirardi, R. Grassi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Europhysics Letters (EPL)6, 95 (1988)

    1988

  46. [54]

    Circuit locality from relativistic lo- cality in scalar field mediated entanglement,

    A. D. Biagio, R. Howl, C. Brukner, C. Rovelli, and M. Christodoulou, “Circuit locality from relativistic lo- cality in scalar field mediated entanglement,” (2025), arXiv:2305.05645 [quant-ph]

    2025

  47. [55]

    Nayak, S

    C. Nayak, S. H. Simon, A. Stern, M. Freedman, and S. Das Sarma, Reviews of Modern Physics80, 1083 (2008), publisher: American Physical Society

    2008

  48. [56]

    J. K. Pachos,Introduction to topological quantum com- putation, Vol. 9781107005 (Cambridge University Press,

  49. [57]

    Xu and D

    C.-Q. Xu and D. L. Zhou, Phys. Rev. A106, 012413 (2022), publisher: American Physical Society

    2022

  50. [58]

    S. H. Simon,Topological Quantum(Oxford University Press, 2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    E. T. Campbell, M. J. Hoban, and J. Eisert, Quantum Info. Comput.14, 981 (2014), place: Paramus, NJ Pub- lisher: Rinton Press, Incorporated

    2014

  52. [60]

    R. M. Lutchyn, E. P. A. M. Bakkers, L. P. Kouwenhoven, P. Krogstrup, C. M. Marcus, and Y. Oreg, Nature Re- 14 views Materials 2018 3:53, 52 (2018), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

    2018

  53. [61]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Physics-Uspekhi44, 131 (2001), publisher: IOP Publishing

    2001

  54. [62]

    P. H. Bonderson,Non-Abelian Anyons and Interferome- try, Ph.D. thesis, Caltech, Pasadena, California (2007)

    2007

  55. [63]

    A. Y. Kitaev, Annals of Physics303, 2 (2003), publisher: Academic Press Inc

    2003

  56. [64]

    Kitaev, Annals Phys.321, 2 (2006)

    A. Kitaev, Annals Phys.321, 2 (2006)

    2006

  57. [65]

    M. H. Freedman, A. Kitaev, M. J. Larsen, and Z. Wang, Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society40, 31 (2003)

    2003

  58. [66]

    M. H. Freedman, A. Kitaev, M. J. Larsen, and Z. Wang, Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics)1509, 341 (2001), iSBN: 354065514X Publisher: Springer Verlag

    2001

  59. [67]

    De Pietri, Nucl

    R. De Pietri, Nucl. Phys. B Proc. Suppl.57, 251 (1997), eprint: gr-qc/9701041

    1997 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Krumm, P

    M. Krumm, P. A. H¨ ohn, and M. P. M¨ uller, Quantum 5, 530 (2021), publisher: Verein zur F¨ orderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften

    2021

  61. [69]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. Chuang,Quantum Computation and Quantum Information(Cambridge University Press, 2000)

    2000

  62. [70]

    Entanglement Asymmetry in non- Abelian Anyonic Systems,

    N. T. Vidal, V. Kunte, L. Vilchez-Estevez, M. L. Bera, and M. N. Bera, “Entanglement Asymmetry in non- Abelian Anyonic Systems,” (2024), arXiv:2406.03546 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  63. [71]

    E. E. Flanagan and S. A. Hughes, New Journal of Physics 7, 204 (2005)

    2005

  64. [73]

    Maggiore, inGravitational Waves: Volume 1: The- ory and Experiments, edited by M

    M. Maggiore, inGravitational Waves: Volume 1: The- ory and Experiments, edited by M. Maggiore (Oxford University Press, 2007) p. 0

    2007

  65. [74]

    Kuti, PoSLA T2005, 001 (2006), eprint: hep- lat/0511023

    J. Kuti, PoSLA T2005, 001 (2006), eprint: hep- lat/0511023

    2006

  66. [75]

    Delcamp, B

    C. Delcamp, B. Dittrich, and A. Riello, Journal of High Energy Physics2017, 61 (2017)

    2017

  67. [76]

    Chiribella, L

    G. Chiribella, L. Giannelli, and C. M. Scandolo, Physical Review Letters132, 190201 (2024), publisher: American Physical Society

    2024

  68. [77]

    Blagojevic,Gravitation and gauge symmetries(In- stitute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, United Kingdom, 2002)

    M. Blagojevic,Gravitation and gauge symmetries(In- stitute of Physics Publishing, Bristol, United Kingdom, 2002)

    2002

  69. [2012]

    publication Title: Introduction to Topological Quantum Computation

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.