Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Evolution of tripartite entanglement in three-qubit Quantum Gravity-Induced Entanglement of Masses (QGEM) with quantum decoherence

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper aims to show that genuine tripartite entanglement survives decoherence in three-qubit QGEM, with an explicit witness and quantitative rate thresholds.

desk verdict Solid, carefully verified witness analysis for three-qubit QGEM under a simple dephasing model; the headline thresholds are honest but conditional on that model. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.01007 v3 pith:TXHLQUZ3 submitted 2025-07-01 quant-ph

Pablo Guillermo Carmona Rufo , Anupam Mazumdar , Carlos Sabín This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph PACS 03.65.Ud04.60.-m
keywords quantumgravity-inducedentanglementofmassesQGEMgenuinetripartitewitnessdecoherencethree-qubitnegativitythree-tangle
topics Quantum Gravity
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 paper aims to establish that three-qubit quantum-gravity-induced entanglement of masses (QGEM) states retain genuine tripartite entanglement even after environmental decoherence, and that this entanglement can be certified by an explicit witness operator. The three experimental geometries (parallel, linear, star) are shown to behave nearly alike, and the paper gives quantitative tolerances: with $m=10^{-14}$ kg and $d_{\mathrm{min}}=35\,\mu$m, genuine tripartite entanglement is witnessable up to $\gamma\approx 10^{-3}$ Hz at superposition width $l=10\,\mu$m, rising to $\gamma\approx0.1$ Hz when $l\approx d_{\mathrm{min}}$. A sympathetic reader should care because these numbers are concrete targets for an experimental run and because the witness distinguishes genuine tripartite entanglement from mere bipartite entanglement across one cut.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the genuine-tripartite-entanglement witness $W = \chi\mathbb{1} - |\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$, built from the target state $|\psi\rangle$ and from $\chi$, the maximal squared Schmidt coefficient of $|\psi\rangle$ over all bipartitions; $\mathrm{Tr}(W\rho)<0$ certifies genuine tripartite entanglement. It is carried by the decoherence model of Eq. (12), in which each qubit's environmental overlap decays as $e^{-\gamma t}$, so off-diagonal density-matrix terms are damped by $e^{-\delta\gamma\tau}$ where $\delta$ counts differing qubit indices; the tripartite negativity and the three-tangle are used to classify the states and to compare against the witness.

What would settle it

A decisive check is to measure the environment overlap for a single superposed mass as a function of both time and superposition separation $l$: if the decay is not exponential at one rate $\gamma$ independent of $l$ and of the other masses' positions, the thresholds in Figs. 7–8 are not the operative ones. Concretely, at $m=10^{-14}$ kg, $d_{\min}=35$ µm, $l=10$ µm, $\tau=2.5$ s, the witness value $\langle W\rangle$ becoming positive at any $\gamma\lesssim10^{-3}$ Hz would refute the paper's quantitative claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the gravitational interaction among three equal masses initially in a product of superpositions produces states that are genuinely tripartite entangled, and that a witness of the form $W = \chi\mathbb{1} - |\psi\rangle\langle\psi|$ detects them after decoherence. Here $\chi$ is the maximal squared Schmidt coefficient over all bipartitions, i.e. the largest overlap $|\psi\rangle$ can have with any pure biseparable state. For the experimentally motivated parameters $m=10^{-14}$ kg, $d_{\mathrm{min}}=35$ µm, $\tau=2.5$ s, the witness remains negative up to $\gamma\simeq10^{-3}$ Hz for $l=10$ µm and up to $\gamma\simeq0.1$ Hz for $l\simeq d_{\mathrm{min}}$ in all three configurations; reducing $d_{\mathrm{min}}$ to 15 µm raises the $l=10$ µm threshold to about 0.1 Hz. The paper also shows that with decoherence a single bipartition's negativity can vanish where another's does not, so certifying the tripartite property genuinely requires tripartite measures, and it extends the three-tangle classification of the generated states to the linear configuration.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative thresholds rest on the model of Eq. (12) in which every qubit's environmental overlap decays exponentially as $e^{-\gamma t}$ with one shared rate $\gamma$, together with the footnote assumption that the superposition width $l$ stays time-independent throughout the protocol.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • An experimental run with $m=10^{-14}$ kg, $d_{\min}=35$ µm, $l=10$ µm, and $\tau=2.5$ s needs the decoherence rate below about $10^{-3}$ Hz for the witness to fire; at $l\approx35$ µm the allowed rate rises to about 0.1 Hz.
  • The parallel, linear and star configurations are nearly equivalent for witnessing genuine tripartite entanglement, so geometry can be chosen on experimental convenience rather than entanglement yield.
  • Because bipartition negativities disagree under decoherence, reporting only a single PPT witness or one bipartition's negativity is insufficient; tripartite negativity or the witness is needed to claim genuine tripartite entanglement.
  • A reduction of the minimum separation to $d_{\min}=15$ µm would allow witness detection at $l=10$ µm up to $\gamma\approx0.1$ Hz, a benchmark for future setups.
  • The witness is in principle implementable by decomposing it into tensor products of Pauli operators, giving a path to a local-measurement protocol for the three-qubit experiment.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The single-rate model likely underestimates the environmental harshness: a genuinely delocalized mass is monitored by a position-coupled environment, so the rate should scale with the superposition separation $l$ and with the instantaneous configuration; correlated decoherence across the three qubits would change the reported thresholds.
  • The same witness construction could be applied to four-qubit or qudit QGEM protocols, where the maximal-Schmidt-coefficient ansatz generalizes; if three-qubit resilience already exceeds two-qubit, higher qudit numbers may push the allowed $\gamma$ further.
  • Detecting genuine tripartite entanglement would certify that the gravitational mediator entangles all three masses simultaneously, not just pairwise; that would strengthen the case that the exchanged graviton acts as a shared quantum channel rather than a sequence of classical pairwise signals.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies genuine tripartite entanglement in three-qubit quantum-gravity-induced entanglement of masses (QGEM) setups under a dephasing decoherence model. For the parallel, linear, and star configurations, the authors derive the gravitational phase shifts (Eqs. (4)-(6)), introduce a single-rate per-qubit exponential dephasing model (Eqs. (12)-(13)), and analyze the resulting mixed states using tripartite negativity, the three-tangle, and a genuine multipartite entanglement witness of the form W = chi - |psi><psi| (Eqs. (19)-(20)). The main quantitative claims are that, for m = 10^-14 kg, dmin = 35 um, and tau = 2.5 s, the witness detects genuine tripartite entanglement for decoherence rates up to gamma ~ 10^-3 Hz at l = 10 um, up to gamma ~ 0.1 Hz for l ~ dmin, and up to gamma ~ 0.1 Hz for dmin = 15 um at l = 10 um (Section V.D, Figs. 7-8). The paper concludes that three-qubit QGEM remains feasible under current parameter constraints provided the decoherence rate is kept below these thresholds.

Significance. The internal algebra is consistent; I verified the phase formulas (4)-(6), the decoherence damping in Eq. (13), the three-tangle expressions (23), (26), (31), and the witness overlap <psi|rho|psi> = (1/64) sum exp(-delta gamma tau). The paper's new contribution beyond the pure-state analysis of Ref. [45] is the treatment of decohered states and the explicit gamma thresholds, which provide a concrete witness operator and quantitative noise targets for experimental proposals. The comparison of the three configurations and the emphasis on genuine tripartite entanglement (rather than mere bipartite entanglement) are useful and clearly presented. The main limitation is that the quantitative thresholds are computed inside a specific, simplified decoherence model, and the physical dependence of gamma on experimental parameters such as l is not discussed.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (12)-(13); Section V.D; Conclusions] The quantitative thresholds (gamma ~ 10^-3 Hz at l = 10 um, gamma ~ 0.1 Hz at l ~ dmin) are derived under the assumption that each qubit experiences the same dephasing rate gamma, independent of the other qubits and of the superposition width. For a realistic environment that monitors the position of each mass, the decoherence rate is typically a function of the branch separation l (for instance, growing with l for collisional or scattering decoherence), so the comparison between different l values in Figs. 7-8 conflates the environmental coupling strength with the protocol's tolerance. The authors should either adopt a concrete gamma(l) model for at least one physical environment, or explicitly state that the reported tolerances are for a fixed external gamma and that the physical gamma(l) must be folded in before drawing experimental conclusions. As written, the claim that l ~ dmin 'favours the detection of entanglement' may not hold if the physical decoherence rate increases with l.
  2. [Section III, Eq. (12)] The model also assumes independent environments for the three qubits, leading to the product damping exp(-delta gamma tau) in Eq. (13). In a levitated-nanoparticle experiment the three masses may share environmental couplings (e.g., common support vibrations, a common light field, or correlated gas scattering), and such correlated dephasing would damp off-diagonal density-matrix elements differently, depending on the total displacement or on joint environmental overlaps. Since the witness thresholds are linear in these damping factors, correlated decoherence could shift the reported tolerances. The paper should justify the independence assumption for the parameter regime considered (m ~ 10^-14 kg, dmin ~ 35 um) or at least discuss how correlated noise would modify the conclusions.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (21) and (24)] There are typos in the definitions of phi_3 and phi_3: both read 'phi_3 = phi_010 = phi_010', but the second equality should involve the other parity state, likely phi_101 (and similarly for the linear case).
  2. [Section V.A and Fig. 5 caption] The text states 'for gamma = 0.1 s' and the caption of Fig. 5 states 'gamma = 0.1 s'; the units should be Hz, not seconds.
  3. [Section V.D] The phrase 'the witness can withstand up a decoherence of up to' contains a grammatical error; it should be 'can withstand a decoherence rate of up to' or similar.
  4. [Eq. (21)] The definition of phi_2 contains a stray equals sign after the list of basis states; the formula should read 'phi_2 = (G m^2 tau / hbar) (1/d + 1/sqrt(4d^2+l^2) + 1/sqrt(d^2+l^2))' without the trailing '='.
  5. [Abstract and Introduction] The abstract says 'we investigate the type of tripartite entanglement', but the paper primarily detects and quantifies genuine tripartite entanglement via measures and a witness; consider rewording to match the content.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the genuine-entanglement witness thresholds are computed from the stated decohered state (Eq. 13) and are not fitted; the modeling inputs are explicit and do not presuppose the target claim.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is a direct computation: phases from the gravitational potential (Eqs. 4-8) define the evolved state (Eq. 3), the decoherence model in Eq. (12) is an explicitly stated assumption ('we will assume that this overlap between the environmental states decreases exponentially over time with a rate γ'), and the witness expectation Tr(Wρ) is then evaluated on the resulting mixed state (Eq. 13). The threshold values (γ ≈ 10^-3 Hz at l = 10 μm and γ ≈ 0.1 Hz at l ≈ dmin) are read off these computed witness surfaces (Figs. 7-8), not obtained by fitting any parameter to a target answer. The witness construction of Eqs. (19)-(20) is the standard optimal-witness ansatz from the external references [51,52]; even though the witness is tailored to the undecohered target state, the nontrivial content is that the decohered state remains within the detected vicinity, which is a calculated, falsifiable result. The pure-state classification borrowed from [45] is benchmarked rather than asserted, and the three-tangle computations (Eqs. 23, 26, 31) independently reproduce and extend it. The authors' prior work supplies the experimental parameters ([42,44]) and the exponential-dephasing ansatz ([40] plus the review [46]); these are inputs to the calculation, not conclusions derived from it. The single-rate γ model is a substantive physical limitation—a realistic position-monitoring environment could have separation-dependent rates—but a modeling assumption is not a circular step, and the paper explicitly flags it as an assumption rather than presenting it as first-principles. No self-definitional reduction, fitted-input-as-prediction, or load-bearing self-citation chain is present. Therefore the derivation is self-contained relative to its stated assumptions and the score is 0.

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

The paper introduces no fitted parameters in the statistical sense: every number (m, dmin, l, tau) is an externally sourced input from [42,44] or scanned, and the entanglement measures are exact computations. The load-bearing premises are: (1) the QGEM framework, that the operator-valued Newtonian potential of Eq. (2) is the correct effective description of tree-level graviton exchange; (2) the single-rate exponential dephasing model of Eq. (12) imported from [40,46]; (3) standard three-qubit entanglement-measure identities. None is derived inside the paper. Circularity is scored low (2) because the thresholds are computed, not fitted, and the state classification is benchmarked against the external result of [45]. No new entities are introduced; the graviton mediator is inherited from the framework.

free parameters (5)
  • m (test mass) = 10^-14 kg baseline; 10^-15 kg scanned
    Mass per qubit, taken from the feasible range cited from [1,22] and [42]. Not fitted; lowering to 10^-15 kg removes witness detectability (Sec. V.D).
  • dmin (minimum separation) = 35 µm baseline; 15 µm scanned
    Distance between neighboring |0⟩ states, chosen so gravity dominates Casimir-Polder [40,41]. Scanned to 15 µm in Fig. 8; thresholds depend strongly on it.
  • l (superposition width) = 10 µm baseline; scanned up to 35 µm
    Width of each qubit superposition, assumed time-independent (footnote 1). The l-dependence of the witness (Fig. 7) is a central output; l = dmin restores the 0.1 Hz tolerance.
  • tau (interaction time) = 2.5 s
    Free-evolution time under gravitational phases and dephasing, chosen as experimentally accessible per [4,28].
  • gamma (decoherence rate) = scanned from 10^-3 Hz to 1 Hz
    Rate in the single-qubit exponential dephasing model (12); the paper's thresholds are statements about this external input, not fitted values.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Operator-valued Newtonian potential from tree-level graviton exchange, V_ij = G m_i m_j / |x_i - x_j| (Eq. 2), is the correct non-relativistic effective gravitational interaction between superposed masses.
    Core QGEM premise inherited from [1,4,5]; not derived or tested here. The paper's entanglement claims are claims about this model.
  • domain assumption Environmental overlaps decay exponentially as exp(-γ t) with one rate γ per qubit, independent of spatial separation or configuration (Eq. 12, following [40,46]).
    Load-bearing for all quantitative thresholds; realistic position-monitoring environments give separation-dependent rates.
  • domain assumption The state at time τ is the ideal unitary phase accumulation with time-independent l (Eq. 3 and footnote 1), with decoherence applied as a post-processing damping of coherences (Eq. 13).
    Ignores the dynamics of the Stern-Gerlach protocol that determines l(t); stated by the authors in footnote 1.
  • standard math The maximal squared Schmidt coefficient over all bipartitions equals the maximal overlap of the target state with pure biseparable states (Eq. 20, from [51,52]).
    Standard construction for optimal genuine-multipartite witnesses; correct for pure target states of equal amplitudes.
  • standard math The three-tangle formula τ = 4|d1 - 2 d2 + 4 d3| (Eq. 17 with Eq. 18) is the correct pure three-qubit entanglement measure, and τ = 1 iff the state is LU-equivalent to GHZ.
    Standard results [49,50]; reproduces the classification of [45] in the parallel case, which cross-checks the implementation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Evolution of tripartite entanglement in three-qubit Quantum Gravity-Induced Entanglement of Masses (QGEM) with quantum decoherence." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TXHLQUZ3

@misc{pith2026250701007,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Evolution of tripartite entanglement in three-qubit Quantum Gravity-Induced Entanglement of Masses (QGEM) with quantum decoherence},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TXHLQUZ3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.01007}
}
read the original abstract

The recently introduced quantum gravity-induced entanglement of masses (QGEM) protocol aims to test the quantum nature of gravity by witnessing the entanglement produced by the virtual exchange of a graviton between two spatially superposed masses. Shortly after the original proposal, further improvements upon the experiment were suggested, including the addition of a third mass, showing that three-qubit setups can be more resilient to higher rates of decoherence caused by the interaction of the system with the environment. In this work, we investigate the type of tripartite entanglement generated in these three-qubit QGEM experiments when considering the effects of decoherence. We show that the gravitational interaction between the qubits is able to generate genuine tripartite entanglement between them, studying the corresponding parameter spaces and comparing the performance of the possible experimental configurations of the three qubits at allowing for the detection of genuine entanglement via an entanglement witness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.01007 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Experimental setups of the three-qubit QGEM experiment proposed in [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Tripartite negativity from Equation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Negativity from Equation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Negativity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: (a) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Time evolution of the (a) tripartite negativity ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Genuine tripartite entanglement witness ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Genuine tripartite entanglement witness values in all three setups as a function of the superposition width [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_8.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. Quantum Gravity Induced Entanglement from Propagating Gravitons

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    Propagating gravitons induce entanglement between two trapped massive particles after a causal time delay, with the effect carried by graviton commutation relations and increased by squeezed initial states.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 51 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [45]

    Multiqubit entanglement due to quantum gravity

    Shaomin Liu, Lin Chen, and Mengfan Liang. Multiqubit entanglement due to quantum gravity. Physics Letters A, 493:129273, 2024

    work page 2024

  2. [42]

    Parameter scanning in a quantum-gravity-induced entanglement of masses (qgem) experiment with electromagnetic screen- ing, 2025

    Martine Schut and Anupam Mazumdar. Parameter scanning in a quantum-gravity-induced entanglement of masses (qgem) experiment with electromagnetic screen- ing, 2025

    work page 2025

  3. [1]

    Morley, Hendrik Ulbricht, Marko Toroˇ s, Mauro Paternostro, An- drew A

    Sougato Bose, Anupam Mazumdar, Gavin W. Morley, Hendrik Ulbricht, Marko Toroˇ s, Mauro Paternostro, An- drew A. Geraci, Peter F. Barker, M. S. Kim, and Gerard Milburn. Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 119:240401, Dec 2017

    work page 2017

  4. [2]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Fv-0k13s_k,

    work page

  5. [3]

    Bennett, David P

    Charles H. Bennett, David P. DiVincenzo, John A. Smolin, and William K. Wootters. Mixed-state entan- glement and quantum error correction. Phys. Rev. A , 54:3824–3851, Nov 1996

    work page 1996

  6. [4]

    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. Phys. Rev. A , 101:052110, May 2020

    2020

  7. [5]

    Mechanism for the quantum natured gravi- tons to entangle masses

    Sougato Bose, Anupam Mazumdar, Martine Schut, and Marko Toroˇ s. Mechanism for the quantum natured gravi- tons to entangle masses. Phys. Rev. D , 105:106028, May 2022

    work page 2022

  8. [6]

    Danielson, Gautam Satishchandran, and Robert M

    Daine L. Danielson, Gautam Satishchandran, and Robert M. Wald. Gravitationally mediated entangle- ment: Newtonian field versus gravitons. Phys. Rev. D , 105(8):086001, 2022

    work page 2022

Show all 52 references
  1. [7]

    Daniel Carney, Philip C. E. Stamp, and Jacob M. Tay- lor. Tabletop experiments for quantum gravity: a user’s manual. Class. Quant. Grav. , 36(3):034001, 2019

    2019

  2. [8]

    Leach, and David C

    Daniel Carney, Kyle G. Leach, and David C. Moore. Searches for Massive Neutrinos with Mechanical Quan- tum Sensors. PRX Quantum , 4(1):010315, 2023

    2023

  3. [9]

    Gravitational optomechanics: Photon- matter entanglement via graviton exchange

    Dripto Biswas, Sougato Bose, Anupam Mazumdar, and Marko Toroˇ s. Gravitational optomechanics: Photon- matter entanglement via graviton exchange. Phys. Rev. D, 108(6):064023, 2023

    2023

  4. [10]

    Locally Mediated Entanglement in Linearized Quantum Gravity

    Marios Christodoulou, Andrea Di Biagio, Markus As- pelmeyer, ˇCaslav Brukner, Carlo Rovelli, and Richard Howl. Locally Mediated Entanglement in Linearized Quantum Gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 130(10):100202, 2023

    2023

  5. [11]

    Beckering Vinckers, ´Alvaro de la Cruz- Dombriz, and Anupam Mazumdar

    Ulrich K. Beckering Vinckers, ´Alvaro de la Cruz- Dombriz, and Anupam Mazumdar. Quantum entangle- ment of masses with nonlocal gravitational interaction. Phys. Rev. D , 107(12):124036, 2023

    2023

  6. [12]

    Distinguishing Jordan and Einstein frames in gravity through entanglement

    Sumanta Chakraborty, Anupam Mazumdar, and Ri- tapriya Pradhan. Distinguishing Jordan and Einstein frames in gravity through entanglement. Phys. Rev. D , 108(12):L121505, 2023

    2023

  7. [13]

    Probing massless and massive gravitons via entanglement in a warped extra dimension

    Shafaq Gulzar Elahi and Anupam Mazumdar. Probing massless and massive gravitons via entanglement in a warped extra dimension. Phys. Rev. D , 108:035018, Aug 2023

    2023

  8. [14]

    On the possi- bility of laboratory evidence for quantum superposition of geometries

    Marios Christodoulou and Carlo Rovelli. On the possi- bility of laboratory evidence for quantum superposition of geometries. Phys. Lett. B , 792:64–68, 2019

    2019

  9. [15]

    Genuine tripartite entangle- ment in graviton-matter interactions

    Pablo Guillermo Carmona Rufo, Anupam Mazum- dar, and Carlos Sab ´ ın. Genuine tripartite entangle- ment in graviton-matter interactions. Phys. Rev. A , 111(2):022444, 2025

    2025

  10. [16]

    Entanglement witness for the weak equiv- alence principle

    Sougato Bose, Anupam Mazumdar, Martine Schut, and Marko Toroˇ s. Entanglement witness for the weak equiv- alence principle. Entropy, 25(3), 2023

    2023

  11. [17]

    Barker, Sougato Bose, Ryan J

    Peter F. Barker, Sougato Bose, Ryan J. Marshman, and Anupam Mazumdar. Entanglement based tomog- raphy to probe new macroscopic forces. Phys. Rev. D , 106:L041901, Aug 2022

    2022

  12. [18]

    Entanglement witnesses mediated via axion-like particles, 2025

    Pablo Guillermo Carmona Rufo, Ayush Kumar, Carlos Sab ´ ın, and Anupam Mazumdar. Entanglement witnesses mediated via axion-like particles, 2025

    2025

  13. [19]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral. Gravitationally induced en- tanglement between two massive particles is sufficient ev- idence of quantum effects in gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 119:240402, Dec 2017

    2017

  14. [20]

    Wald, Flaminia Giaco- mini, Esteban Castro-Ruiz, ˇCaslav Brukner, and Markus Aspelmeyer

    Alessio Belenchia, Robert M. Wald, Flaminia Giaco- mini, Esteban Castro-Ruiz, ˇCaslav Brukner, and Markus Aspelmeyer. Quantum Superposition of Massive Ob- jects and the Quantization of Gravity. Phys. Rev. D , 98(12):126009, 2018

    2018

  15. [21]

    Pedernales, Gavin W

    Julen S. Pedernales, Gavin W. Morley, and Martin B. Plenio. Motional Dynamical Decoupling for Interfer- ometry with Macroscopic Particles. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 125(2):023602, 2020

    2020

  16. [22]

    Marshman, Anupam Mazumdar, Ron Folman, and Sougato Bose

    Ryan J. Marshman, Anupam Mazumdar, Ron Folman, and Sougato Bose. Constructing nano-object quan- tum superpositions with a Stern-Gerlach interferometer. Phys. Rev. Res. , 4(2):023087, 2022

    2022

  17. [24]

    Loss of coherence and coherence protection from a gravi- ton bath

    Marko Toroˇ s, Anupam Mazumdar, and Sougato Bose. Loss of coherence and coherence protection from a gravi- ton bath. Phys. Rev. D , 109(8):084050, 2024

    2024

  18. [25]

    Hadrien Chevalier, A. J. Paige, and M. S. Kim. Wit- nessing the nonclassical nature of gravity in the presence 11 of unknown interactions. Phys. Rev. A , 102(2):022428, 2020

    2020

  19. [26]

    Van De Kamp, Ryan J

    Marko Toroˇ s, Thomas W. Van De Kamp, Ryan J. Marsh- man, M. S. Kim, Anupam Mazumdar, and Sougato Bose. Relative acceleration noise mitigation for nanocrys- tal matter-wave interferometry: Applications to entan- gling masses via quantum gravity. Phys. Rev. Res. , 3(2):023178, 2021

    2021

  20. [27]

    On the possibil- ity of experimental detection of the discreteness of time

    Marios Christodoulou and Carlo Rovelli. On the possibil- ity of experimental detection of the discreteness of time. Front. in Phys., 8:207, 2020

    2020

  21. [28]

    Realization of a complete stern-gerlach in- terferometer: Toward 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 in- terferometer: Toward a test of quantum gravity. Science Advances, 7...

    2021

  22. [29]

    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 decoher- ence. Phys. Rev. A , 104:052416, Nov 2021

    2021

  23. [30]

    Daniel Carney, Holger M¨ uller, and Jacob M. Taylor. Us- ing an Atom Interferometer to Infer Gravitational Entan- glement Generation. PRX Quantum , 2(3):030330, 2021. [Erratum: PRX Quantum 3, 010902 (2022)]

    2022

  24. [31]

    Entanglement and decoherence of massive par- ticles due to gravity

    Daisuke Miki, Akira Matsumura, and Kazuhiro Ya- mamoto. Entanglement and decoherence of massive par- ticles due to gravity. Phys. Rev. D, 103:026017, Jan 2021

    2021

  25. [32]

    Gravity- induced entanglement in optomechanical systems

    Akira Matsumura and Kazuhiro Yamamoto. Gravity- induced entanglement in optomechanical systems. Phys. Rev. D, 102(10):106021, 2020

    2020

  26. [33]

    Meso- scopic entanglement through central–potential interac- tions

    Sofia Qvarfort, Sougato Bose, and Alessio Serafini. Meso- scopic entanglement through central–potential interac- tions. J. Phys. B , 53(23):235501, 2020

    2020

  27. [34]

    Quantum correlation of light mediated by gravity

    Haixing Miao, Denis Martynov, Huan Yang, and Ani- mesh Datta. Quantum correlation of light mediated by gravity. Phys. Rev. A , 101(6):063804, 2020

    2020

  28. [35]

    Weiss, M

    T. Weiss, M. Roda-Llordes, E. Torrontegui, M. As- pelmeyer, and O. Romero-Isart. Large Quantum De- localization of a Levitated Nanoparticle Using Optimal Control: Applications for Force Sensing and Entangling via Weak Forces. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 127(2):023601, 2021

    2021

  29. [36]

    Cosco, J

    F. Cosco, J. S. Pedernales, and M. B. Plenio. Enhanced force sensitivity and entanglement in periodically driven optomechanics. Phys. Rev. A , 103(6):L061501, 2021

    2021

  30. [37]

    Signatures of the quantum nature of gravity in the differential motion of two masses

    Animesh Datta and Haixing Miao. Signatures of the quantum nature of gravity in the differential motion of two masses. Quantum Sci. Technol., 6(4):045014, 2021

    2021

  31. [38]

    Observable quantum entanglement due to gravity

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

    2020

  32. [39]

    Simon A. Haine. Searching for Signatures of Quantum Gravity in Quantum Gases. New J. Phys. , 23(3):033020, 2021

    2021

  33. [40]

    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 de- coherence using three superpositions. Phys. Rev. A , 105:032411, Mar 2022

    2022

  34. [41]

    H. B. G. Casimir and D. Polder. The influence of retar- dation on the london-van der waals forces. Phys. Rev. , 73:360–372, Feb 1948

    1948

  35. [43]

    Relax- ation of experimental parameters in a quantum-gravity- induced entanglement of masses protocol using electro- magnetic screening

    Martine Schut, Alexey Grinin, Andrew Dana, Sougato Bose, Andrew Geraci, and Anupam Mazumdar. Relax- ation of experimental parameters in a quantum-gravity- induced entanglement of masses protocol using electro- magnetic screening. Phys. Rev. Res., 5:043170, Nov 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Micrometer-size spatial superpositions for the qgem protocol via screening and trapping

    Martine Schut, Andrew Geraci, Sougato Bose, and Anu- pam Mazumdar. Micrometer-size spatial superpositions for the qgem protocol via screening and trapping. Phys. Rev. Res., 6:013199, Feb 2024

    2024

  37. [46]

    The quantum-to-classical tran- sition and decoherence, 2019

    Maximilian Schlosshauer. The quantum-to-classical tran- sition and decoherence, 2019

    2019

  38. [47]

    van de Kamp, Ryan J

    Thomas W. van de Kamp, Ryan J. Marshman, Sougato Bose, and Anupam Mazumdar. Quantum gravity witness via entanglement of masses: Casimir screening. Phys. Rev. A, 102:062807, Dec 2020

    2020

  39. [48]

    Sab ´ ın and G

    C. Sab ´ ın and G. Garc ´ ıa-Alcaine. A classification of entan- glement in three-qubit systems. The European Physical Journal D , 48(3):435–442, 2008

    2008

  40. [49]

    The rebit three-tangle and its re- lation to two-qubit entanglement

    William K Wootters. The rebit three-tangle and its re- lation to two-qubit entanglement. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 47(42):424037, oct 2014

    2014

  41. [50]

    Woot- ters

    Valerie Coffman, Joydip Kundu, and William K. Woot- ters. Distributed entanglement. Phys. Rev. A, 61:052306, Apr 2000

    2000

  42. [51]

    Entanglement detection

    Otfried G¨ uhne and G´ eza T´ oth. Entanglement detection. Physics Reports, 474(1):1–75, 2009

    2009

  43. [52]

    Experimental detection of mul- tipartite entanglement using witness operators

    Mohamed Bourennane, Manfred Eibl, Christian Kurt- siefer, Sascha Gaertner, Harald Weinfurter, Otfried G¨ uhne, Philipp Hyllus, Dagmar Bruß, Maciej Lewen- stein, and Anna Sanpera. Experimental detection of mul- tipartite entanglement using witness operators. Phys. Rev. Lett., 9...

    2004

  44. [53]

    Guehne and Hannover Univ

    O. Guehne and Hannover Univ. (Germany). Fachbereich Physik. Detecting quantum entanglement. entanglement witnesses and uncertainty relations. 2004

    2004

Pith tools

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