Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Even without a local tensor product structure, a lattice gauge theory obeys a generalized LOCC theorem: local operations and classical communication cannot generate operationally accessible entanglement.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 14:35 UTC pith:7YLJKHNZ

load-bearing objection A careful and mostly sound lattice-gauge framework for local operations and a generalized LOCC theorem; the FME application has an unmodeled relaxation step that is asserted rather than derived, and the stress-test objection overclaims in a way that should not be repeated. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.19806 v2 pith:7YLJKHNZ submitted 2025-12-22 quant-ph gr-qc

Local Operations and Field Mediated Entanglement without a Local Tensor Product Structure

Alberto Spalvieri , S\'ebastien Christophe Garmier , Flaminia Giacomini This is my paper
classification quant-ph gr-qc MSC 81P4581P4081T2581T13 PACS 03.65.Ud11.15.Ha
keywords lattice gauge theoryLOCC theoremlocal operationsoperational decompositionfield-mediated entanglementsuperselection sectorsgauge-invariant local algebrasquantum gravity tests
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that the core quantum-information result behind proposed table-top tests of quantum gravity—entanglement cannot be created by local operations and classical communication (LOCC)—remains true in a gauge theory even though the physical Hilbert space does not factorize into a spacetime-local tensor product. The authors build a two-dimensional lattice toy model that mimics electromagnetism, define gauge-invariant local algebras for a spatial region, and derive a sector-wise decomposition of the physical Hilbert space into superselection sectors, within each of which a tensor product structure exists. They prove a generalized LOCC theorem: no operationally accessible entanglement can be generated by classical communication and operations belonging to the local algebra of a region. Applied to field-mediated entanglement protocols, the theorem shows that the spin entanglement observed at the end of the protocol necessarily arises from non-classical, field-mediated interactions, not from local operations or from entanglement embezzlement. If right, this validates the LOCC-based reasoning used in table-top tests of quantum gravity for a discretized gauge theory, a step toward an operational notion of subsystem structure in gauge theories.

Core claim

The central claim is a boxed theorem: no operationally accessible entanglement can be generated through classical communication and generalized local operations of a region's local algebra. The authors construct gauge-invariant local algebras in a two-dimensional lattice gauge model of electromagnetism, diagonalize their center to get superselection sectors K, and show the physical Hilbert space decomposes as ⊕_K H^K_A ⊗ H^K_B ⊗ H^K_AB, with local algebras acting block-diagonally. Entanglement is defined sector-wise, so the standard LOCC theorem applies per sector. For field-mediated entanglement, they give an explicit dressed-operator mechanism for creating spatial superpositions of qubit s

What carries the argument

The central object is the Operational Decomposition: a gauge theory's physical Hilbert space, which cannot factorize as a spatial tensor product, is written as a direct sum over superselection sectors K of ordinary tensor products, ⊕_K H^K_A ⊗ H^K_B ⊗ H^K_AB, with the gauge-invariant local algebras acting block-diagonally on these sectors. This sector-wise tensor product structure is obtained by diagonalizing the center of the local algebra—whose elements include the constraints inside the region and edge terms crossing its boundary—and then projecting onto the constraint-satisfying sector. Within each K-sector the standard notions of local operations, entanglement, and the LOCC theorem appl

Load-bearing premise

The physical Hilbert space admits the Operational Decomposition H_phy = ⊕_K H^K_A ⊗ H^K_B ⊗ H^K_AB with block-diagonal local algebras—a decomposition obtained by diagonalizing the center of a local algebra of unbounded position and momentum operators, a step whose rigorous justification the paper defers to a later construction.

What would settle it

A direct check: simulate the lattice model for small N×N and search over all sequences of generalized local operations (the block-diagonal local algebras of Eq. (46)) plus classical communication, with no autonomous field evolution. The paper's embezzlement argument predicts every such sequence leaves the global state unchanged (U' U = identity); any sequence that produces a spin-entangled state with H(σ^A)_χ > 0 would falsify the proposed extension of the LOCC theorem. Alternatively, a rigorous demonstration that the center of the local algebra generated by unbounded position–momentum operato

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The LOCC-based reasoning in proposed table-top tests of the quantum nature of gravity is valid for a discretized gauge theory: observed spin entanglement can only come from non-classical field interactions, even though no global local tensor product structure exists.
  • A meaningful, operationally consistent notion of local operations and entanglement exists in gauge theories with non-factorizable Hilbert spaces, provided the center of the local algebra yields a discrete superselection-sector decomposition.
  • The field-mediated entanglement protocol in the toy model produces an explicit, gauge-invariant mechanism for creating spatial superpositions of sources: dressing the source-displacement operators with a compensating field shift.
  • The entanglement generated is not an artifact of entanglement embezzlement: applying the local dressed operations alone leaves the global state unchanged; the entanglement increase requires the intermediate autonomous field evolution.
  • In the continuum limit the model reduces to two-dimensional QED, reproducing the known Coulomb potential and ground-state structure; however, the sector decomposition is not directly promotable to the strict continuum limit, where algebras become type-III.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the same sector-wise decomposition scheme generalizes to linearized gravity—which the paper leaves open and flags as difficult—gravitationally mediated entanglement arguments would inherit the same LOCC protection, potentially closing a loophole in tests aimed at the quantum nature of gravity.
  • The edge terms that label the K-sectors resemble known edge modes in gauge theories with boundaries; connecting them to quantum reference frames, as the paper suggests, could give these sectors an independent operational meaning.
  • A testable extension: in the finite-resolution regime where the lattice spacing is reduced but not taken to zero, the type-I sector structure persists; probing entanglement generation at increasingly fine lattices could show how the LOCC conclusion degrades as the strict continuum limit is approached.
  • The dressed operators that create source superpositions give a concrete template for realizing gauge-invariant 'superposition creation' on programmable lattice simulators, making the protocol's entanglement generation testable in engineered gauge-theory settings.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper develops a 2D lattice gauge toy model that mimics key structural features of 2+1D QED, constructs gauge-invariant local operator algebras, and derives two Hilbert-space decompositions (Operational and Split) that provide a sector-wise tensor-product structure in the absence of a global factorization. On this basis the authors state a generalized LOCC theorem and apply it to a field-mediated entanglement (FME) protocol, claiming that the spin entanglement generated in the protocol necessarily arises from non-classical field-mediated interactions. The argument is supported by extensive appendices deriving ground states, dressing operators, and the detailed protocol steps.

Significance. If correct, the paper would be a meaningful advance: it offers an operational notion of locality and entanglement in a constrained gauge-like system, and it would provide a concrete setting in which LOCC-based reasoning, as used in BMV-type gravity experiments, survives the absence of a local tensor product structure. The work is largely self-contained, uses no fitted parameters, and gives detailed derivations in the appendices. The sector-wise extension of LOCC is natural and the explicit construction of dressed source-superposition operations is valuable. However, two load-bearing steps are presently not established: the disentangling transition from Eqs. (54) to (55), and the rigorous status of the Operational Decomposition on which the generalized LOCC theorem rests. These issues prevent the central FME claim from being accepted as it stands.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 5.3, Eqs. (54)-(55)] The transition from Eq. (54) to Eq. (55) is not justified. In Eq. (54) the spin is entangled with branch-dependent field states |ψ'_s0(s)>_F, which App. J.3 defines as W_F(s)|ψ0_s>, four generally distinct displaced Gaussian states. A field-only relaxation is a CPTP map on the field. After tracing the field, spin coherences are bounded by the Gram matrix G_{s,s'} = <ψ'_s0(s)|ψ'_s0(s')>; a CPTP map cannot increase these coherences. Thus a deterministic field-only channel cannot turn the state of Eq. (54) into the pure product form of Eq. (57) unless the branch field states are identical (or a measurement/postselection is added). Consequently the pure spin state |χ> of Eq. (56) and the entanglement increase in Eq. (62) do not follow.
  2. [Section 4.2, Eq. (45)] The Operational Decomposition, which is the basis for the generalized LOCC theorem, is asserted rather than proven. The text explicitly says that the diagonalization of the center of A_A for unbounded q,p 'could be justified by passing to Weyl operators' and 'we do not focus on this specific construction.' Since Eq. (45) with the block-diagonal algebras Eq. (46) is what allows sector-wise use of the standard LOCC theorem, the main theorem is conditional on a technical assumption whose proof is deferred. The paper should either supply the Type-I/Weyl justification or explicitly state the theorem as conditional on that decomposition.
  3. [Section 5.4, Eq. (62)] Even granting the Operational Decomposition, the entanglement-increase calculation assumes that the final state is pure in the L-R bipartition and that the field-matter component is exactly |ψ0>_{F,M}. Because of the disentangling issue above, the final spin state may be mixed; in that case H(σ_A) is not the bipartite entanglement of the L-R partition, and Eqs. (62)-(64) do not establish an increase in operationally accessible entanglement. The calculation also depends on uncomputed phases γ, γ', φ, although this alone would be less problematic since the argument only needs some phases that produce entanglement.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Section 3.2, Eq. (26) vs Appendix K] Eq. (26) states that the continuum limit of D(r-r') is 1/|r-r'|, but Appendix K, Table V, gives D(r-r') ~ -ln|r-r'|, which is the correct 2D Coulomb potential. This inconsistency should be corrected.
  2. [Throughout] Typos and formatting issues: 'kinematicalal' in the paragraph after Eq. (14), 'arugment' in Section 5.4, and the unnumbered subsection heading 'Introducing the spins' in Section 5.2.
  3. [Box 4.3] The generalized LOCC theorem is stated in a box but not numbered, making it awkward to reference in later sections. Consider numbering it as a displayed theorem.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the central derivation is self-contained and the generalized LOCC theorem is an honest corollary of the standard sector-wise argument.

full rationale

Reviewing the claimed derivation chain, I find no load-bearing step that reduces to its own inputs. The matter-field ground states (Eqs. (19)-(30)) are derived in Appendix G from the discretized Hamiltonian and Gauss constraint via the discrete Fourier transform and harmonic-oscillator solutions; the source-dependent shift is computed, not fitted. The dressing operators U and U' (Eqs. (J40)-(J41), (J50)) are constructed explicitly so that they commute with the constraints and belong to the local algebras, so their locality claim is not definitionally assumed. The Operational and Split Decompositions are derived from diagonalizing the center of explicitly defined local algebras (Appendices H-I); although the Type-I rigor is deferred, this is an acknowledged assumption, not a circular reduction. The Generalized LOCC theorem is presented as the standard LOCC theorem applied sector-wise (Section 4.3): it is a corollary of a known external result rather than a prediction equivalent to its own definition, and the non-trivial content lies in the sector decomposition that makes it applicable. The reliance on Ref. [48], co-authored by F. Giacomini, is not circular under the stated rules: that work is a published, parameter-free derivation and is used mainly for comparison; the ground states in this paper are re-derived internally. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The skeptic's disentangling-step objection to Eqs. (54)-(55) concerns the dynamical validity of tracing out the field and is a correctness risk, not a circularity. Therefore no specific circular step can be quoted, and the appropriate score is 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 4 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or fitted constants. Its model is a toy lattice gauge model with standard qubit matter and spin probes; the central assumptions are the Dirac quantization procedure and the deferred operator-algebraic decomposition for unbounded operators.

axioms (4)
  • domain assumption The physical Hilbert space is obtained by projecting kinematical states onto the zero eigenvalue of first-class constraints using an improper projector and a redefined inner product (Eqs 13-14, footnote 3).
    Standard Dirac/gauge-theory quantization is assumed; for continuous spectrum the inner product is not fully specified.
  • ad hoc to paper Block-decomposing H_phys as ⊕_K H^K_A ⊗ H^K_B ⊗ H^K_AB follows from diagonalizing the center of the local algebra A_A; the paper explicitly defers the Type-I/Weyl-operator justification for unbounded q,p (Section 4.2).
    This is load-bearing for the generalized LOCC theorem but is not proved in the text.
  • domain assumption Matter is modeled by static qubits with total charge conservation imposed as a superselection rule; superposed configurations are allowed only within a fixed particle-number sector (Section 3.1, Appendix F).
    Restricts to semiclassical sources, which is needed for the Split and Operational decompositions.
  • domain assumption After source displacement, the field relaxes to the source-dependent ground state and relaxation phases γ(s) either are negligible or do not change the conclusions (Eqs 50-51, Section 5.3).
    Needed to obtain the simple phase-based final state; the relaxation dynamics itself is not modeled.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 58065 in / 13039 out tokens · 145106 ms · 2026-08-03T14:35:09.186649+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Quantum information has become a powerful tool for probing the structure of quantum field theories, yet its application to gauge theories remains subtle. On the one hand, quantum information theory assumes subsystem locality, i.e.~the factorization of the total Hilbert space into subsystems. On the other hand, gauge constraints prevent the total Hilbert space to decompose into a spacetime-local tensor product structure. Because the Hilbert space structure of gauge theories does not accommodate the subsystem decomposition used in quantum information theory, standard information-theoretic results, such as the Local Operations and Classical Communication (LOCC) theorem, cannot be used straightforwardly in the context of gauge theories. In this work, we bridge this gap in the case of a two-dimensional lattice gauge model that captures key features of electromagnetism. In particular, we construct gauge-invariant local algebras and derive a physically meaningful decomposition of the Hilbert space, providing an operationally consistent notion of locality in the absence of a local tensor-product structure. We apply this framework to field-mediated entanglement protocols relevant to proposed tests of the quantum nature of gravity. We show that the discretized version of electromagnetism satisfies an analogue of the LOCC theorem: entanglement cannot be generated without genuine quantum field interactions, even in the absence of a spacetime-local tensor product factorization of the Hilbert space. This may point towards an operational way to define a subsystem structure for gauge theories.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.19806 by Alberto Spalvieri, Flaminia Giacomini, S\'ebastien Christophe Garmier.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Graphical representation of a portion of the lattice, with waves representing a non-trivial interaction between the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Representation of a portion of the region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Graphical representation of the generators of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Schematic representation of the FME protocol. Two massive particles, each in a spatial superposition, interact solely [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Two square regions of dimension M, representing the laboratories in which the two parties A and B are located during a field-mediated entanglement (FME) experiment. The regions are chosen sufficiently far apart so that their local algebras have a trivial intersection, which is always achievable with the algebra definitions introduced in the previous chapter. This spatial separation should not be confused w… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Diagrammatic representation of the FME protocol. The spatial separation of the two sources in the regions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Diagram depicting the FME protocol from the perspective of the Operational Decomposition. The horizontal lines [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: A portion of the lattice is shown, with the desired area containing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: The four possible ˆb’s that are constructed around a center point. On the left, combinations coming from the two choices of signs for qˆy component, while on the right the two for qˆx. F. Quantum model for matter As we already briefly introduced in Section 3.1, we choose to model the quantum matter content of our theory in the simplest possible way. Our choice is to associate to each site of the lattice a … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Graph showing the action of aˆ † l,a−2 aˆl,aWˆ l,a−1 F . The red arrow represents the operation of moving a particle between the two sites, while the field variable p i,j x at the blue point is shifted by 2a. The two crosses indicate the constraints affected by the presence of the source before and after the process. A simple and intuitive interpretation of the physical operator we have just derived can b… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Typical entanglement entropy with charge conservation

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    Typical entanglement entropy with fixed global charge is given by the local thermal entropy at fixed charge density for both U(1) and SU(2) symmetries in the thermodynamic limit.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J. S. Bell. On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox.Physics Physique Fizika, 1:195–200, 1964.doi:10.1103/ PhysicsPhysiqueFizika.1.195

    1964

  2. [2]

    R. S. Ingarden. Quantum information theory.Reports on Mathematical Physics, 10(1):43–72, 1976.doi:https://doi. org/10.1016/0034-4877(76)90005-7. 22

    work page doi:10.1016/0034-4877(76)90005-7 1976

  3. [3]

    C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner. Communication via one- and two-particle operators on einstein-podolsky-rosen states. Phys. Rev. Lett., 69:2881–2884, 1992.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.69.2881

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.69.2881 1992

  4. [4]

    C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Crépeau, R. Jozsa, A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters. Teleporting an unknown quantum state via dual classical and einstein-podolsky-rosen channels.Physical Review Letters, 70(13):1895–1899, 1993.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1895

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.70.1895 1993

  5. [5]

    A. Peres. Separability criterion for density matrices.Physical Review Letters, 77(8):1413–1415, 1996.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.77.1413

    1996

  6. [6]

    Preskill

    J. Preskill. Lecture notes for physics 229: Quantum information and computation. 1998. Caltech, URLhttp://theory. caltech.edu/~preskill/ph229/

    1998

  7. [7]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang.Quantum Computation and Quantum Information. Cambridge University Press, Cam- bridge, 2000

    2000

  8. [9]

    Donnelly

    W. Donnelly. Decomposition of entanglement entropy in lattice gauge theory.Phys. Rev. D, 85:085004, 2012.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.85.085004

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.85.085004 2012

  9. [10]

    Casini, M

    H. Casini, M. Huerta, and J. A. Rosabal. Remarks on entanglement entropy for gauge fields.Phys. Rev. D, 89:085012, 2014.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.085012

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.085012 2014

  10. [11]

    Ghosh, R

    S. Ghosh, R. M. Soni, and S. P. Trivedi. On the entanglement entropy for gauge theories.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015(9), 2015.doi:10.1007/jhep09(2015)069

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2015)069 2015

  11. [12]

    R. M. Soni and S. P. Trivedi. Aspects of entanglement entropy for gauge theories.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2016(1), 2016.doi:10.1007/jhep01(2016)136

    doi:10.1007/jhep01(2016)136 2016

  12. [13]

    Van Acoleyen, N

    K. Van Acoleyen, N. Bultinck, J. Haegeman, M. Marien, V. B. Scholz, and F. Verstraete. Entanglement of distillation for lattice gauge theories.Physical Review Letters, 117(13), 2016.doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.131602

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.117.131602 2016

  13. [14]

    Panizza, R

    V. Panizza, R. Costa de Almeida, and P. Hauke. Entanglement witnessing for lattice gauge theories.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2022(9), 2022.doi:10.1007/jhep09(2022)196

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep09(2022)196 2022

  14. [15]

    Donnelly and A

    W. Donnelly and A. C. Wall. Entanglement entropy of electromagnetic edge modes.Physical Review Letters, 114(11), 2015.doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.111603

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.114.111603 2015

  15. [16]

    Zanardi, D

    P. Zanardi, D. A. Lidar, and S. Lloyd. Quantum tensor product structures are observable induced.Phys. Rev. Lett., 92:060402, 2004.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.92.060402

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.92.060402 2004

  16. [17]

    Bianchi, P

    E. Bianchi, P. Dona, and R. Kumar. Non-abelian symmetry-resolved entanglement entropy.SciPost Physics, 17(5), 2024. doi:10.21468/scipostphys.17.5.127

    doi:10.21468/scipostphys.17.5.127 2024

  17. [18]

    Casini and M

    H. Casini and M. Huerta. Entanglement entropy for a maxwell field: Numerical calculation on a two-dimensional lattice. Phys. Rev. D, 90:105013, 2014.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.105013

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.105013 2014

  18. [19]

    Buividovich and M

    P. Buividovich and M. Polikarpov. Entanglement entropy in gauge theories and the holographic principle for electric strings.Physics Letters B, 670(2):141–145, 2008.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2008.10.032

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2008.10.032 2008

  19. [20]

    Radicevic

    D. Radicevic. Notes on entanglement in abelian gauge theories. arXiv:1404.1391, 2014. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/ 1404.1391

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  20. [21]

    Donnelly

    W. Donnelly. Entanglement entropy and nonabelian gauge symmetry.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 31(21):214003, 2014.doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/21/214003

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/31/21/214003 2014

  21. [22]

    C. Beem, L. Rastelli, A. Sen, and B. C. van Rees. Resummation and s-duality in n=4 sym.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015(4):122, 2015.doi:10.1007/JHEP04(2015)122

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)122 2015

  22. [23]

    S. Aoki, T. Iritani, M. Nozaki, T. Numasawa, N. Shiba, and H. Tasaki. On the definition of entanglement entropy in lattice gauge theories.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015(6):187, 2015.doi:10.1007/JHEP06(2015)187

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep06(2015)187 2015

  23. [24]

    Donnelly and A

    W. Donnelly and A. C. Wall. Geometric entropy and edge modes of the electromagnetic field.Physical Review D, 94(10), 2016.doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.104053

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.104053 2016

  24. [25]

    P. Zanardi. Virtual quantum subsystems.Phys. Rev. Lett., 87:077901, 2001.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.077901

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.87.077901 2001

  25. [26]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroš, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn. Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:240401, 2017.doi:10.1103/ PhysRevLett.119.240401

    2017

  26. [27]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral. Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity.Phys. Rev. Lett., 119:240402, 2017.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.240402

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.240402 2017

  27. [28]

    T. D. Galley, F. Giacomini, and J. H. Selby. A no-go theorem on the nature of the gravitational field beyond quantum theory.Quantum, 6:779, 2022.doi:10.22331/q-2022-08-17-779

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2022-08-17-779 2022

  28. [29]

    M. J. W. Hall and M. Reginatto. On two recent proposals for witnessing nonclassical gravity.Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical, 51(8):085303, 2018.doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aaa734

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/aaa734 2018

  29. [30]

    Anastopoulos and B

    C. Anastopoulos and B. L. Hu. Probing a gravitational cat state.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 32(16):165022, 2015. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/16/165022

    doi:10.1088/0264-9381/32/16/165022 2015

  30. [31]

    Belenchia, R

    A. Belenchia, R. M. Wald, F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, Č. Brukner, and M. Aspelmeyer. Quantum superposition of 23 massive objects and the quantization of gravity.Phys. Rev. D, 98:126009, 2018.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.126009

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.126009 2018

  31. [32]

    Belenchia, R

    A. Belenchia, R. M. Wald, F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, Č. Brukner, and M. Aspelmeyer. Information content of the gravitational field of a quantum superposition.International Journal of Modern Physics D, 28(14):1943001, 2019. doi:10.1142/S0218271819430016

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271819430016 2019

  32. [33]

    Christodoulou and C

    M. Christodoulou and C. Rovelli. On the possibility of laboratory evidence for quantum superposition of geometries. Physics Letters B, 792:64–68, 2019.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2019.03.015

    doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2019.03.015 2019

  33. [34]

    R. Howl, V. Vedral, D. Naik, M. Christodoulou, C. Rovelli, and A. Iyer. Non-gaussianity as a signature of a quantum theory of gravity.PRX Quantum, 2:010325, 2021.doi:10.1103/PRXQuantum.2.010325

    work page doi:10.1103/prxquantum.2.010325 2021

  34. [35]

    R. J. Marshman, A. Mazumdar, and S. Bose. Locality and entanglement in table-top testing of the quantum nature of linearized gravity.Physical Review A, 101(5), 2020.doi:10.1103/physreva.101.052110

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.101.052110 2020

  35. [36]

    Krisnanda, G

    T. Krisnanda, G. Y. Tham, M. Paternostro, and T. Paterek. Observable quantum entanglement due to gravity.npj Quantum Information, 6(1), 2020.doi:10.1038/s41534-020-0243-y

    doi:10.1038/s41534-020-0243-y 2020

  36. [37]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral. Witnessing nonclassicality beyond quantum theory.Physical Review D, 102(8), 2020.doi: 10.1103/physrevd.102.086012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.086012 2020

  37. [38]

    S. Pal, P. Batra, T. Krisnanda, T. Paterek, and T. S. Mahesh. Experimental localisation of quantum entanglement through monitored classical mediator.Quantum, 5:478, 2021.doi:10.22331/q-2021-06-17-478

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2021-06-17-478 2021

  38. [39]

    Kent and D

    A. Kent and D. Pitalúa-García. Testing the nonclassicality of spacetime: What can we learn from bell–bose et al. -marletto- vedral experiments?Physical Review D, 104(12), 2021.doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.126030

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.126030 2021

  39. [40]

    D. L. Danielson, G. Satishchandran, and R. M. Wald. Gravitationally mediated entanglement: Newtonian field versus gravitons.Physical Review D, 105(8), 2022.doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.086001

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.105.086001 2022

  40. [41]

    R. Zhou, R. J. Marshman, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar. Catapulting towards massive and large spatial quantum superpo- sition.Physical Review Research, 4(4), 2022.doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.043157

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevresearch.4.043157 2022

  41. [42]

    Yant and M

    J. Yant and M. Blencowe. Gravitationally induced entanglement in a harmonic trap.Phys. Rev. D, 107:106018, 2023. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.106018. URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.106018

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.107.106018 2023

  42. [43]

    C. H. Bennett, H. J. Bernstein, S. Popescu, and B. Schumacher. Concentrating partial entanglement by local operations. Physical Review A, 53(4):2046–2052, 1996.doi:10.1103/physreva.53.2046

    doi:10.1103/physreva.53.2046 2046

  43. [44]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki. Quantum entanglement.Rev. Mod. Phys., 81:865–942, 2009. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.81.865

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.81.865 2009

  44. [45]

    Christodoulou, A

    M. Christodoulou, A. Di Biagio, R. Howl, and C. Rovelli. Gravity entanglement, quantum reference systems, degrees of freedom.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 40(4):047001, 2023.doi:10.1088/1361-6382/acb0aa

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/acb0aa 2023

  45. [46]

    Fragkos, M

    V. Fragkos, M. Kopp, and I. Pikovski. On inference of quantization from gravitationally induced entanglement.AVS Quantum Science, 4(4):045601, 2022.doi:10.1116/5.0101334

    work page doi:10.1116/5.0101334 2022

  46. [47]

    Martín-Martínez and T

    E. Martín-Martínez and T. R. Perche. What gravity mediated entanglement can really tell us about quantum gravity. Physical Review D, 108(10), 2023.doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.l101702. URLhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD. 108.L101702

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.108.l101702 2023

  47. [48]

    L.-Q. Chen, F. Giacomini, and C. Rovelli. Quantum States of Fields for Quantum Split Sources.Quantum, 7:958, 2023. doi:10.22331/q-2023-03-20-958

    work page doi:10.22331/q-2023-03-20-958 2023

  48. [49]

    S. L. Ludescher, L. D. Loveridge, T. D. Galley, and M. P. Müller. Gravity-mediated entanglement via infinite-dimensional systems. arXiv:2507.13201, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2507.13201

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [50]

    Yant and M

    J. Yant and M. Blencowe. An operational quantum field theoretic model for gravitationally induced entanglement. arXiv:2503.20855, 2025. URLhttps://arxiv.org/abs/2503.20855

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  50. [51]

    Aziz and R

    J. Aziz and R. Howl. Classical theories of gravity produce entanglement.Nature, 646:813–817, 2025.doi:10.1038/ s41586-025-09595-7. Received 24 September 2024; Accepted 05 September 2025; Published 22 October 2025

    2025

  51. [52]

    Christodoulou, A

    M. Christodoulou, A. Di Biagio, M. Aspelmeyer, Č. Brukner, C. Rovelli, and R. Howl. Locally mediated entanglement in linearized quantum gravity.Phys. Rev. Lett., 130:100202, 2023.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.100202. URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.100202

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.100202 2023

  52. [53]

    Bengyat, A

    O. Bengyat, A. Di Biagio, M. Aspelmeyer, and M. Christodoulou. Gravity-mediated entanglement between oscillators as quantum superposition of geometries.Phys. Rev. D, 110:056046, 2024.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.056046. URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.110.056046

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.110.056046 2024

  53. [54]

    Haag.Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras

    R. Haag.Local Quantum Physics: Fields, Particles, Algebras. Theoretical and Mathematical Physics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1996

    1996

  54. [55]

    Brunetti, K

    R. Brunetti, K. Fredenhagen, P. Imani, and K. Rejzner. The locality axiom in quantum field theory and tensor products of c*-algebras.Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 26(06):1450010, 2014.doi:10.1142/S0129055X1450010X. arXiv:https://doi.org/10.1142/S0129055X1450010X

    work page doi:10.1142/s0129055x1450010x 2014

  55. [56]

    Chandrasekharan and U.-J

    S. Chandrasekharan and U.-J. Wiese. Quantum link models: A discrete approach to gauge theories.Nuclear Physics B, 492(1):455–471, 1997.doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0550-3213(97)80041-7

    work page doi:10.1016/s0550-3213(97)80041-7 1997

  56. [57]

    Brower, S

    R. Brower, S. Chandrasekharan, and U.-J. Wiese. Qcd as a quantum link model.Phys. Rev. D, 60:094502, 1999.doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.094502. 24

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.60.094502 1999

  57. [58]

    U.-J. Wiese. Ultracold quantum gases and lattice systems: quantum simulation of lattice gauge theories.Annalen der Physik, 525(10-11):777–796, 2013.doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/andp.201300104

    work page doi:10.1002/andp.201300104 2013

  58. [59]

    Henneaux and C

    M. Henneaux and C. Teitelboim.Quantization of Gauge Systems, chapter 1. Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1992. doi:10.1515/9780691213866

    doi:10.1515/9780691213866 1992

  59. [60]

    Fradkin.Quantum Field Theory: An Integrated Approach, chapter 2 and 9

    E. Fradkin.Quantum Field Theory: An Integrated Approach, chapter 2 and 9. Princeton University Press, 2021. URL https://books.google.ch/books?id=quEIEAAAQBAJ

    2021

  60. [61]

    Entanglementinrelativisticquantumfieldtheory.Physical Review D,70(10):105001, 2004.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD

    Y.Shi. Entanglementinrelativisticquantumfieldtheory.Physical Review D,70(10):105001, 2004.doi:10.1103/PhysRevD. 70.105001

    doi:10.1103/physrevd 2004

  61. [62]

    Kijowski, G

    J. Kijowski, G. Rudolph, and C. Śliwa. On the structure of the observable algebra for qed on the lattice.Letters in Mathematical Physics, 43:299–308, 1998.doi:10.1023/A:1007400816358

    work page doi:10.1023/a:1007400816358 1998

  62. [63]

    Kijowski, G

    J. Kijowski, G. Rudolph, and A. Thielmann. Algebra of observables and charge superselection sectors for qed on the lattice. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 188:535–564, 1997.doi:10.1007/s002200050178

    work page doi:10.1007/s002200050178 1997

  63. [64]

    Dereziński and C

    J. Dereziński and C. Gérard.Introduction, pp. 49–64. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2013. URLhttps://www.fuw.edu.pl/~derezins/qft-lectures.pdf

    2013

  64. [65]

    B. C. Hall.Quantum Theory for Mathematicians, volume 267 ofGraduate Texts in Mathematics. Springer New York, 1 edition, 2013.doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7116-5

    doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-7116-5 2013

  65. [66]

    R. V. Kadison and J. R. Ringrose.Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras, Vol. II: Advanced Theory, volume 16 ofGraduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, 1997

    1997

  66. [67]

    GRUNDLING and F

    H. GRUNDLING and F. LLEDÓ. Local quantum constraints.Reviews in Mathematical Physics, 12(09):1159–1218, 2000. doi:10.1142/S0129055X00000459

    work page doi:10.1142/s0129055x00000459 2000

  67. [68]

    Bratteli and D

    O. Bratteli and D. W. Robinson.Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics I. Texts and Monographs in Physics. Springer, 2nd edition, 1987.doi:10.1007/978-3-662-02520-8

    doi:10.1007/978-3-662-02520-8 1987

  68. [69]

    Takesaki.Theory of Operator Algebras II, volume 125 ofEncyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences

    M. Takesaki.Theory of Operator Algebras II, volume 125 ofEncyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg, 1 edition, 2003.doi:10.1007/978-3-662-10451-4

    doi:10.1007/978-3-662-10451-4 2003

  69. [70]

    F. J. Murray and J. v. Neumann. On rings of operators.Annals of Mathematics, 37(1):116–229, 1936. URLhttp: //www.jstor.org/stable/1968693

    arXiv 1936

  70. [71]

    Vanrietvelde, P

    A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Hoehn, F. Giacomini, and E. Castro-Ruiz. A change of perspective: switching quantum reference frames via a perspective-neutral framework.Quantum, 4:225, 2020.doi:10.22331/q-2020-01-27-225

    doi:10.22331/q-2020-01-27-225 2020

  71. [72]

    C. M. DeWitt and D. Rickles (editors).The Role of Gravitation in Physics: Report from the 1957 Chapel Hill Conference. Edition Open Access, 2011. URLhttps://edition-open-sources.org/sources/5/

    1957

  72. [73]

    H. D. Zeh. Feynman’s interpretation of quantum theory.European Physical Journal H, 36:63–74, 2011.doi:10.1140/ epjh/e2011-10035-2

    2011

  73. [74]

    S. B. Giddings. Hilbert space structure in quantum gravity: an algebraic perspective.Journal of High Energy Physics, 2015(12):1–21, 2015.doi:10.1007/jhep12(2015)099

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep12(2015)099 2015

  74. [75]

    M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang.Entropy and information, p. 500–527. Cambridge University Press, 2010

    2010

  75. [76]

    M. M. Wilde.Quantum Information and Entropy, p. 252–291. Cambridge University Press, 2013

    2013

  76. [77]

    van Dam and P

    W. van Dam and P. Hayden. Universal entanglement transformations without communication.Phys. Rev. A, 67:060302, 2003.doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.67.060302

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.67.060302 2003

  77. [78]

    van Luijk, A

    L. van Luijk, A. Stottmeister, R. F. Werner, and H. Wilming. Relativistic quantum fields are universal entanglement embezzlers. 2024.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.261602

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.133.261602 2024

  78. [79]

    Chen and F

    L.-Q. Chen and F. Giacomini. Quantum effects in gravity beyond the newton potential from a delocalized quantum source. Phys. Rev. X, 15:031063, 2025.doi:10.1103/hl1c-t8z9

    work page doi:10.1103/hl1c-t8z9 2025

  79. [80]

    Takesaki.Theory of Operator Algebras II

    M. Takesaki.Theory of Operator Algebras II. Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2002. URLhttps://books.google.at/books?id=-4GyR1VlQz4C

    2002

  80. [81]

    Yngvason

    J. Yngvason. The role of type iii factors in quantum field theory.Reports on Mathematical Physics, 55(1):135–147, 2005. doi:10.1016/s0034-4877(05)80009-6

    doi:10.1016/s0034-4877(05)80009-6 2005

Showing first 80 references.