A One-sided Witness for the Quantumness of Gravitational Dynamics

Igor Pikovski; Konstantin Beyer; M. S. Kim

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A One-sided Witness for the Quantumness of Gravitational Dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 The paper claims that a negative value of a three-correlator witness, measured on one gravitationally coupled mass alone, proves the interaction cannot be described by classical memory and therefore is a conclusive one-sided signature of…

desk verdict A clever and genuinely new probe-only witness for quantum gravity, with a fixable but load-bearing proof gap in Appendix B and a wrong Hamiltonian in the oscillator appendix. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15588 v1 pith:GJO7WB7T submitted 2025-07-21 quant-ph gr-qc

Konstantin Beyer , M. S. Kim , Igor Pikovski This is my paper

classification quant-phgr-qc

keywords quantumgravitymemorywitnessone-sidedtestgravitationallyinducedentanglementtable-topexperimentsnon-LOCCdynamicsopensystems

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 proposes a conclusive one-sided test of whether the gravitational interaction between two quantum masses is quantum in nature. The central idea is quantum memory: if the reduced dynamics of one mass—the probe—cannot be reproduced by a classical-memory decomposition, then the joint gravitational dynamics must be either non-LOCC (not realizable by local operations and classical communication) or gravity itself must store quantum information at intermediate times. The authors construct an explicit two-qubit protocol in which the gravitational unitary is interrupted by local phase gates, and they derive an analytical witness, $w=\lambda(1/3+\cos(4g\tau))$, that requires measuring only three correlators on the probe. If the measured $w$ is negative, the probe dynamics provably requires quantum memory. Unlike earlier local signatures that can be reproduced by classical models, this witness rules out classical dynamics and works with measurements on only one subsystem.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the classical-memory decomposition of a two-time probe dynamics, Eq. (2): $E_1[\rho]=\sum_i K_i\rho K_i^\dagger$ and $E_2[\rho]=\sum_i \Phi_i[K_i\rho K_i^\dagger]$ with $\Phi_i$ completely positive trace-preserving maps. Dynamics of this form can be simulated by storing the measurement outcome $i$ as classical data, so ruling out such a decomposition certifies that quantum memory is required. The witness $w$ in Eq. (10), built from the three correlators $\mathrm{tr}\,\{\sigma_j E_n[\sigma_i]\}$, does exactly that: for the gravitational circuit it evaluates to $w=\lambda(1/3+\cos(4g\tau))$, and $w<0$ implies no classical-memory decomposition exists. The intermediate local gates $S$ and $Z$ are the crucial device: they convert the bare gravitational dephasing, which is always classically realizable, into a dynamics that provably requires quantum memory.

What would settle it

Run the same local-gate sequence with gravity switched off or shielded and measure the three probe correlators that define $w$; if the control run gives $w<0$, the witness fires without any gravitational quantum effect and the claim that $w<0$ certifies gravitational quantumness is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the quantum nature of the gravitational interaction can be certified by local measurements on one subsystem only. The certification uses the notion of verifiable quantum memory: a two-time dynamics $D=(E_1,E_2)$ on the probe is classical-memory-realizable if $E_2$ can be obtained by conditioning subsequent completely positive trace-preserving maps on classical outcomes of a measurement that already realized $E_1$; if no such decomposition exists, a quantum memory must have stored information at the intermediate time. In the proposed two-qubit circuit, the gravitational unitary $U=\exp(-ig\tau\,\sigma_x\otimes\sigma_x)$ is interrupted by local gates $S=\exp(-i\pi\sigma_z/4)$ and a local $Z$-gate, giving $E_1$ as a partial amplitude-damping map and $E_2$ as the identity, so every input state is restored at time $t_2$. The paper derives the analytical witness $w=\lambda(1/3+\cos(4g\tau))$ from three probe correlators and proves that $w<0$ implies the absence of a classical-memory decomposition. Hence a negative $w$ measured on the probe alone proves that the gravitational coupling coherently transfers quantum information, i.e., the interaction is non-LOCC or gravity itself provides the quantum memory.

Load-bearing premise

The protocol assumes that the intermediate local gates $S$ and $Z$ are purely local operations on each mass that do not jointly couple the probe and memory or otherwise mimic the quantum-memory signature; if they do introduce any joint dynamics, the witness could turn negative without any quantum gravitational effect.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A negative $w$ measured on the probe alone rules out every dynamics that can be written with classical memory in Eq. (2), including random-unitary dephasing models that mimic local decoherence.
The one-sided nature means the memory system $M$ never needs to be measured or fully characterized, so the test works when $M$ is much heavier than the probe and only requires ground-state cooling in the oscillator version.
The analytical witness requires only three correlators, so it can be implemented without full process tomography of the probe dynamics.
For the qubit-qubit setup, the estimated parameters—two masses of about $10^{-14}$ kg with interaction times above roughly 3 seconds under the stated geometry—are comparable to those needed for gravitationally induced entanglement witnesses.
For the qubit-oscillator setup, a 1 mg oscillator with a $10^{-14}$ kg probe and interaction time near 100 seconds could give a measurable witness, whereas a single-atom probe would require an unreachable precision of order $10^{-28}$.

Reading between the lines

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

One natural control experiment, not discussed in the Letter, is to run the same gate sequence with gravity shielded or replaced by a known classical force; a negative $w$ in that control would show the witness can fire without gravitational quantum memory.
The same three-correlator witness could be applied to any suspected quantum mediator between a probe and an unmeasured partner, provided a local-interrupted interaction sequence can be engineered.
Because the intermediate gates are essential, the certified object is the combined 'gravity plus local control' dynamics; whether this weakens the protocol as a test of bare gravity is an interpretive question the paper leaves open.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Best to know: this is a genuinely new idea — using quantum memory witnesses from open-system theory to certify the quantumness of gravity from probe-only measurements. The echo protocol with local gates that turns pure dephasing into a dynamics requiring quantum memory is clever, and the analytical witness with only a handful of correlators (Eq. 10) is a real step beyond the SDP-based witnesses in [49]. The paper also does the right thing by being explicit about what the witness can and cannot prove: a negative w rules out classical-memory decompositions, which implies either non-LOCC gravity or gravity itself acting as a quantum memory. That is a clear and honest logical structure.

The main text's two-qubit derivation is self-consistent. I checked the maps E1, E2 and the expression w=λ(1/3+cos(4gτ)); they follow from the Hamiltonian and gate sequence. The experimental estimates are in the same ballpark as the original GIE proposals, which is credible.

Now the soft spots. The biggest one is Appendix B. The witness validity rests on finding positive semidefinite Q,R satisfying Eq. (B4). The authors give R explicitly, then say it is 'straightforward to verify' that Q is also PSD — without showing Q or giving any numerical check. That is the load-bearing step, and as written it is unproven. A referee should demand the explicit Q matrix or a script that verifies PSD. This is fixable, but it is not cosmetic; if Q were not PSD, w<0 would not certify quantum memory.

Second, Appendix D has an error: the Hamiltonian written after the RWA is σ+ a† + σ- a, which is anti-Jaynes-Cummings, not the Jaynes-Cummings model. The supplemental equations are consistent with the anti-JC choice, so it is not just a typo. This affects the oscillator example, not the central two-qubit result, but the example should be corrected or re-derived.

Third, the 'one-sided' claim is slightly oversold. The protocol's maps E1,E2 assume the memory M starts in a specific state |1>. The paper says the experimenter can remain ignorant of M, but the derivation does not show the witness works for arbitrary ρM. That is a gap between the advertised generality and the concrete calculation.

Fourth, the premise that the intermediate local gates act only locally and do not create joint P-M dynamics is stated but not error-analyzed. This is an important assumption for any experiment.

Overall: the central idea is sound and the two-qubit result is likely correct, but the paper needs revision to close the App B gap, fix App D, and clarify the memory-state assumption. I would send this to a serious referee. The result, if repaired, would be a solid contribution to the quantum-gravity phenomenology literature.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a one-sided witness for the quantum nature of gravitational dynamics, based on the concept of verifiable quantum memory. Two gravitationally coupled qubits P and M interact through a Newtonian-potential Hamiltonian, with intermediate local phase gates inserted. The reduced dynamics of P at two times defines D=(E1,E2); the witness w in Eq. (10), built from three measured correlators on P alone, is claimed to certify that D cannot be realized with a classical-memory decomposition of the form Eq. (2). For the proposed two-qubit protocol the authors derive w=λ(1/3+cos(4gτ)) and give experimental parameters for which w<0. The paper argues that a negative w requires either that gravity is non-LOCC or that the gravitational field itself acts as a quantum memory, and it extends the framework numerically and to a qubit-oscillator setup in the appendices.

Significance. If the proof gap identified below is repaired, this would be a significant new tool: it is a genuinely one-sided test in the sense that measurements and state tomography are performed only on the probe, and the analytical witness is falsifiable and experimentally concrete. The connection between quantum memory in the reduced dynamics and the quantumness of the joint gravitational interaction is clearly articulated in Fig. 1 and Appendix A, and the paper gives explicit, order-of-magnitude experimental estimates. The numerical SDP in Appendix C is a concrete computational procedure that could certify witnesses for arbitrary interaction times, which is a useful contribution in its own right. The main caveat is that the analytical proof of the specific witness Eq. (10) is load-bearing and is not supplied correctly as written.

major comments (3)

[Appendix B (Eqs. B3-B5)] The proof that Eq. (10) is a valid quantum-memory witness is incomplete and, as written, appears to be incorrect. The paper defines R=|κ⟩⟨κ| with κ=(|0111⟩−|1110⟩)/√2 and states that 'It is then straightforward to verify that the operator Q resulting from Eq. (B4) is also positive semidefinite.' No expression for Q is given. A direct calculation using the stated definitions shows that this claim fails: in the subspace spanned by |Φ+⟩_AB⊗|00⟩_DD' and |Φ+⟩_AB⊗|11⟩_DD', with the paper's unnormalized |Φ+⟩=|00⟩+|11⟩, the matrix of Q is [[2/3,−4/3],[−4/3,−5/6]], whose determinant is −7/3. Hence Q has a negative eigenvalue and Eq. (B4) is not satisfied by the proposed R. Because w<0 in Eq. (10) is the logical core of the central inference, this is not a cosmetic omission: the authors must either exhibit a valid pair (Q,R) for their specific W1,W2 or replace the analytical witness with a certified one.
[Appendix C (Eq. C4)] The numerical SDP in Eq. (C4) optimizes over the coefficients w11, w1z, wxx, wzz and produces valid witnesses for each τ/g, but it does not certify the particular analytical W1,W2 used in Eqs. (B3). Consequently, Figure 5 supports the existence of some witness of the restricted form for every τ/g, but it does not support the claim that the closed-form witness in Eq. (10), with its specific coefficients, is valid. Given the failure of the Appendix B verification, the analytical result w=λ(1/3+cos(4gτ)) and the associated statement that a measured w<0 proves quantum memory remain unsupported. The authors should either provide a correct proof for Eq. (10) or restate Eq. (11) as a numerically certified example and include the SDP certificate.
[Main text, Eq. (10) and Fig. 4] The protocol is advertised as one-sided and as requiring no detailed knowledge of M, but the two-qubit circuit requires preparing M in the specific state |1⟩ and applying the local phase gates S⊗S to M. This means that the experimenter must have sufficient control over M to implement these gates, even though no measurements are made on M. The paper should clarify that the one-sidedness refers to state preparation and readout of the probe only, and that control of M, including its initial state, is still part of the protocol.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (10)] The text says the witness requires measurement of 'only three correlators', but the term tr σ_z E1[𝟙] is not a single Pauli-eigenstate preparation: it requires preparing both σ_z eigenstates (or a maximally mixed ensemble) and summing the outcomes. The experimental counting of preparation/measurement settings should be clarified.
[Experimental estimates] The statement that the witness 'becomes negative if we choose an interaction time τ>3s' is imprecise because w=λ(1/3+cos(4gτ)) is periodic; negativity occurs only in intervals where cos(4gτ)<−1/3. Please specify the allowed intervals rather than a single threshold.
[Abstract and Introduction] There are several typographical and grammatical errors, including 'do not conclusively proof the quantum nature' (should be 'prove') and 'were λ>0' in Eq. (10) (should be 'where λ>0').
[Appendix D] The qubit-oscillator example is a useful extension, but the statement that it is 'similar to the one in Refs. [15,16]' would benefit from an explicit remark that the revival dynamics in those references are locally classically realizable, which is the motivation for the additional local Hamiltonian introduced here.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the witness value is computed analytically from the model Hamiltonian and gate sequence, the quantum-memory framework is imported from external prior work (with one self-citation that is not circular), and the main weaknesses are an omitted positivity proof and an imprecise correlator count, not circular reasoning.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation is not circular. The probe dynamics E1,E2 are computed by direct partial trace of the unitary sequence U(S⊗S)U Z_P U(S⊗S)U acting on the product state, giving Eq. (9) and E2[ρP]=ρP; the witness value w=λ(1/3+cos 4gτ) is then obtained by evaluating the correlators in Eq. (10). No parameter is fitted to make w negative; λ>0 only rescales the witness, and the sign is fixed by the computed expression. The classical-memory decomposition in Eq. (2) and the witness condition in Eq. (B4) are imported from Refs. [48] and [49]. Ref. [48] is coauthored by the first author, but it supplies the general definition of classical-memory-realizable dynamics and is a published result that does not contain the gravitational protocol or the value of w; the gravitational claim therefore has independent content. The main weaknesses are not circularity: Appendix B asserts Q⪰0 in Eq. (B4) without exhibiting Q, which is an omitted proof at the core of the witness (a correctness risk), and Eq. (10) includes trσ_z E1[1], which is obtained by summing two of the advertised preparations rather than being a third independent Pauli-eigenstate correlator. The local-gate assumption (S and Z act only locally and do not jointly couple P and M) is a physical modeling assumption, not a circular step. The numerical SDP in App. C constructs witnesses from the model Choi states, so its negative minimum is by construction, but it is presented as a witness-existence demonstration rather than an experimental prediction, and the analytical witness stands independently. Overall score 1: one self-citation (Ref. [48]) is present and foundational, but it is not load-bearing in a circular sense.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard quantum mechanics, the phenomenological gravitational Hamiltonian, and the external theorem from Ref [49]. No new entities or fitted parameters are introduced. The main caveats are the domain assumptions about local gates and the memory initial state.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The gravitational interaction between two masses in spatial superposition is described by the effective Hamiltonian H_g = ħg σ_x⊗σ_x (Eq 3).
This two-branch interaction is standard in GIE proposals but neglects other gravitational couplings (e.g., σ_z⊗σ_z, momentum-dependent terms) that could alter the probe dynamics.
domain assumption Local phase gates S = exp(-iπσ_z/4) can be applied to P and M without introducing joint dynamics or affecting the gravitational interaction.
The gates are assumed to be electromagnetic and instantaneous; if they introduce spurious P-M coupling, the test of gravity's quantumness is compromised.
domain assumption The memory system M starts in the product state ρM = |1><1| with |1> = (|L>+|R>)/√2 (for the two-qubit example), and is statistically independent of the probe preparation.
The explicit maps E1, E2 and witness w in Eqs (9)-(11) depend on this initial state; the paper claims generality about M but does not prove the witness works for arbitrary ρM.
standard math The theorem of Ref [49] characterizing valid quantum memory witnesses via the operator decomposition in Eq (B4) is correct.
The proof of the witness's validity in App B reduces entirely to checking that the operators W1, W2 admit a decomposition with Q,R≥0, using the result of Ref [49].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A One-sided Witness for the Quantumness of Gravitational Dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GJO7WB7T

@misc{pith2026250715588,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A One-sided Witness for the Quantumness of Gravitational Dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GJO7WB7T}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15588}
}

read the original abstract

Quantum information concepts and quantum technologies have opened the prospect to probe quantum gravity in table-top experiments. Many proposals rely on witnessing entanglement generation as a means to probe whether gravity is a quantum channel. Here we formulate a different and conclusive indirect test of the quantum nature of the gravitational interaction. Our witness is based on the concept of verifiable quantum memory in the dynamics of a quantum system. This allows us to assess the quantumness of an interaction between two systems by local measurements on one subsystem only. Our approach enables the first one-sided verification of the quantum nature of gravity, and provides a quantum signature of the interaction that is not fully covered by existing proposals. Our results open novel ways to witnessing the quantum nature of gravity in table-top experiments and clarify how {decisive tests can be designed even with measurements on only the probe system

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15588 by the authors.

**Figure 3.** Two prototypical setups. (a) Two masses 𝑀 and 𝑚 are each brought into spatial superposition and can effectively be described by qubits with states |𝐿, 𝑅⟩ and |𝑙, 𝑟⟩, respectively. (b) A spatial qubit of mass 𝑚 interacts with a quantum harmonic oscillator of mass 𝑀. In both cases, due to the different gravitational interaction energies between the branches, quantum mechanics predicts the buildup of entanglement. The… view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Circuit of the idealized example and visualization of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The numerically optimized minimal value of the witness [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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

Gravitational decoherence of a composite particle: the interplay between gravitons and a classical Newtonian potential
quant-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A classical Newtonian potential slightly slows graviton-induced decoherence of composite particles and can in principle reverse it (recoherence), while graviton–internal-DoF interplay still guarantees long-time decoherence.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[49]

Bäcker, K

C. Bäcker, K. Beyer, and W. T. Strunz, Local Disclosure of Quantum Memory in Non-Markovian Dynamics, Physical Re- view Letters132, 060402 (2024)

work page 2024
[1]

Marshall, C

W. Marshall, C. Simon, R. Penrose, and D. Bouwmeester, To- wards quantum superpositions of a mirror, Physical Review Letters 91, 130401 (2003)

work page 2003
[2]

Up to time𝑡 = 𝜏, the two subsystems only interact gravitationally, leading to the joint unitary𝑈 in Eq. (5). At time𝑡 = 𝜏, local phase gates𝑆 = exp[−𝑖𝜋𝜎𝑧/4] are applied to both qubits (gates of this form can in principle be implemented by including a spin degree of freedom for each mass and applying a spin-dependent force). The local gates are assumed to ...

work page 2023
[3]

Pikovski, M

I. Pikovski, M. R. Vanner, M. Aspelmeyer, M. Kim, and Č. Brukner, Probing planck-scale physics with quantum optics, Nature Physics8, 393 (2012)

work page 2012
[4]

Bekenstein, Is a tabletop search for planck scale signals feasible?, Physical Review D86, 124040 (2012)

J. Bekenstein, Is a tabletop search for planck scale signals feasible?, Physical Review D86, 124040 (2012)

work page 2012
[5]

H.Yang,H.Miao,D.-S.Lee,B.Helou,andY.Chen,Macroscopic quantum mechanics in a classical spacetime, Physical review letters 110, 170401 (2013)

work page 2013
[6]

D.Kafri,J.Taylor,andG.Milburn,Aclassicalchannelmodelfor gravitational decoherence, New Journal of Physics16, 065020 (2014)

work page 2014
[7]

Belenchia, D

A. Belenchia, D. M. Benincasa, S. Liberati, F. Marin, F. Marino, and A. Ortolan, Testing quantumgravity induced nonlocality via optomechanical quantum oscillators, Physical review letters116, 161303 (2016)

work page 2016

Show all 57 references

[8]

Pfister, J

C. Pfister, J. Kaniewski, M. Tomamichel, A. Mantri, R. Schmucker, N. McMahon, G. Milburn, and S. Wehner, A uni- versaltestforgravitationaldecoherence,NatureCommunications 7, 13022 (2016)

2016
[9]

Krisnanda, M

T. Krisnanda, M. Zuppardo, M. Paternostro, and T. Paterek, Revealingnonclassicalityofinaccessibleobjects,Physicalreview letters 119, 120402 (2017)

2017
[10]

Carney, P

D. Carney, P. C. Stamp, and J. M. Taylor, Tabletop experiments for quantum gravity: a user’s manual, Classical and Quantum Gravity 36, 034001 (2019)

2019
[11]

S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroš, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. Kim, and G. Mil- burn,SpinEntanglementWitnessforQuantumGravity,Physical Review Letters119, 240401 (2017), publisher: American Phys- ical Society

2017
[12]

C.MarlettoandV.Vedral,GravitationallyInducedEntanglement betweenTwoMassiveParticlesisSufficientEvidenceofQuantum Effects in Gravity, Physical Review Letters119, 240402 (2017)

2017
[13]

H.Chevalier,A.J.Paige,andM.S.Kim,Witnessingthenonclas- sical nature of gravity in the presence of unknown interactions, Physical Review A102, 022428 (2020), publisher: American Physical Society

2020
[14]

T. Guff, N. Boulle, and I. Pikovski, Optimal fidelity witnesses for gravitational entanglement, Physical Review A105, 022444 (2022)

2022
[15]

Krisnanda, G

T. Krisnanda, G. Y. Tham, M. Paternostro, and T. Paterek, Observable quantum entanglement due to gravity, npj Quantum Information 6, 1 (2020), publisher: Nature Publishing Group

2020
[16]

Carney, H

D. Carney, H. Müller, and J. M. Taylor, Using an Atom Inter- ferometer to Infer Gravitational Entanglement Generation, PRX Quantum 2, 030330 (2021)

2021
[17]

Matsumura, Y

A. Matsumura, Y. Nambu, and K. Yamamoto, Leggett-Garg inequalities for testing quantumness of gravity, Physical Review A 106, 012214 (2022)

2022
[18]

Carlesso, A

M. Carlesso, A. Bassi, M. Paternostro, and H. Ulbricht, Testing the gravitational field generated by a quantum superposition, New Journal of Physics21, 093052 (2019)

2019
[19]

Anastopoulos and B.-L

C. Anastopoulos and B.-L. Hu, Quantum superposition of two gravitational cat states, Classical and Quantum Gravity37, 235012 (2020)

2020
[20]

D.L.Danielson,G.Satishchandran,andR.M.Wald,Gravitation- ally mediated entanglement: Newtonian field versus gravitons, Physical Review D105, 086001 (2022)

2022
[21]

J. S. Pedernales, K. Streltsov, and M. B. Plenio, Enhancing gravitational interaction between quantum systems by a massive mediator, Physical Review Letters128, 110401 (2022)

2022
[22]

Christodoulou, A

M. Christodoulou, A. Di Biagio, M. Aspelmeyer, Č. Brukner, C. Rovelli, and R. Howl, Locally mediated entanglement in linearizedquantumgravity,PhysicalReviewLetters 130,100202 (2023)

2023
[23]

Y.Kaku, T.Fujita,andA.Matsumura,Enhancementofquantum gravitysignalinanoptomechanicalexperiment,PhysicalReview D 108, 106014 (2023)

2023
[24]

Hanif, D

F. Hanif, D. Das, J. Halliwell, D. Home, A. Mazumdar, H. Ul- bricht, and S. Bose, Testing whether gravity acts as a quantum entity when measured, Physical Review Letters133, 180201 (2024)

2024
[25]

S. Bose, I. Fuentes, A. A. Geraci, S. M. Khan, S. Qvarfort, M. Rademacher, M. Rashid, M. Toroš, H. Ulbricht, and C. C. Wanjura, Massive quantum systems as interfaces of quantum mechanics and gravity, Reviews of Modern Physics97, 015003 (2025)

2025
[26]

Colella, A

R. Colella, A. W. Overhauser, and S. A. Werner, Observation of Gravitationally Induced Quantum Interference, Physical Review Letters 34, 1472 (1975)

1975
[27]

V. V. Nesvizhevsky, H. G. Börner, A. K. Petukhov, H. Abele, S. Baeßler, F. J. Rueß, T. Stöferle, A. Westphal, A. M. Gagarski, G. A. Petrov, and A. V. Strelkov, Quantum states of neutrons in the Earth’s gravitational field, Nature415, 297 (2002)

2002
[28]

Fragkos and I

V. Fragkos and I. Pikovski, Probing classical and quantum viola- tions of the equivalence of active and passive gravitational mass, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16198 10.48550/arXiv.2503.16198 (2025)

2025 doi arXiv
[29]

Bahrami, A

M. Bahrami, A. Großardt, S. Donadi, and A. Bassi, The schrödinger–newton equation and its foundations, New Journal of Physics16, 115007 (2014)

2014
[30]

Anastopoulos and B.-L

C. Anastopoulos and B.-L. Hu, Probing a gravitational cat state, Classical and Quantum Gravity32, 165022 (2015)

2015
[31]

J.Oppenheim,Apostquantumtheoryofclassicalgravity? (2023), arXiv:1811.03116 [hep-th, physics:quant-ph]

2023 arXiv
[32]

G.Tobar,S.K.Manikandan,T.Beitel,andI.Pikovski,Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing, Nature Communications 15, 7229 (2024)

2024
[33]

Shenderov, M

V. Shenderov, M. Suppiah, T. Beitel, G. Tobar, S. K. Manik- andan,andI.Pikovski,Stimulatedabsorptionofsinglegravitons: First light on quantum gravity, arXiv preprint arXiv:2407.11929 https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2407.11929 (2024)

2024 doi
[34]

Horodecki, P

R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Reviews of modern physics81, 865 (2009)

2009
[35]

E.Chitambar,D.Leung,L.Mančinska,M.Ozols,andA.Winter, Everything you always wanted to know about locc (but were afraid to ask), Communications in Mathematical Physics328, 303 (2014)

2014
[36]

L. Lami, J. S. Pedernales, and M. B. Plenio, Testing the Quan- tumness of Gravity without Entanglement, Physical Review X 14, 021022 (2024)

2024
[37]

Toccacelo, U

K. Toccacelo, U. L. Andersen, and J. B. Brask, Benchmarks for quantum communication via gravity (2025), arXiv:2503.03585 [quant-ph]

2025
[38]

M. J. Hall and M. Reginatto, On two recent proposals for wit- nessingnonclassicalgravity,JournalofPhysicsA:Mathematical and Theoretical51, 085303 (2018)

2018
[39]

aspinentanglement 9 witness for quantum gravity

C.AnastopoulosandB.-L.Hu,Commenton"aspinentanglement 9 witness for quantum gravity" and on" gravitationally induced entanglementbetweentwomassiveparticlesissufficientevidence of quantum effects in gravity", arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.11315 10.48550/arXiv.1804.11315 (2018)

2018 doi arXiv
[40]

Fragkos, M

V. Fragkos, M. Kopp, and I. Pikovski, On inference of quantiza- tion from gravitationally induced entanglement, AVS Quantum Science 4, 10.1116/5.0101334 (2022)

2022 doi
[41]

Carney, Newton, entanglement, and the graviton, Physical Review D105, 024029 (2022)

D. Carney, Newton, entanglement, and the graviton, Physical Review D105, 024029 (2022)

2022
[42]

Franson, Entanglement from longitudinal and scalar photons, PhysicalReviewA—Atomic, Molecular, andOpticalPhysics 84, 033809 (2011)

J. Franson, Entanglement from longitudinal and scalar photons, PhysicalReviewA—Atomic, Molecular, andOpticalPhysics 84, 033809 (2011)

2011
[43]

Di Pietra and C

G. Di Pietra and C. Marletto, Temporal witnesses of non- classicality and conservation laws, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and Theoretical56, 265305 (2023)

2023
[44]

Marletto, Temporal Entanglement and Witnesses of Non-Classicality (2025), arXiv:2506.15474 [quant-ph]

G.D.Pietra,G.Bhole,J.Eaton,A.J.Baldwin,J.A.Jones,V.Ved- ral, and C. Marletto, Temporal Entanglement and Witnesses of Non-Classicality (2025), arXiv:2506.15474 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[45]

Hosten, Constraints on probing quantum coherence to infer gravitationalentanglement,PhysicalReviewResearch 4,013023 (2022)

O. Hosten, Constraints on probing quantum coherence to infer gravitationalentanglement,PhysicalReviewResearch 4,013023 (2022)

2022
[46]

Y.Ma,T.Guff,G.W.Morley,I.Pikovski,andM.S.Kim,Limits on inference of gravitational entanglement, Physical Review Research 4, 013024 (2022)

2022
[47]

Streltsov, J

K. Streltsov, J. S. Pedernales, and M. B. Plenio, On the Signific- anceofInterferometricRevivalsfortheFundamentalDescription of Gravity, Universe8, 58 (2022)

2022
[48]

Carney, H

D. Carney, H. Müller, and J. Taylor, Erratum: Using an atom interferometer to infer gravitational entanglement generation [PRX Quantum 2, 030330 (2021)], PRX Quantum3, 010902 (2022)

2021
[50]

Yu, T.-A

M. Yu, T.-A. Ohst, H.-C. Nguyen, and S. Nimmrichter, Quantum memory in spontaneous emission processes (2025), arXiv:2504.08605 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[51]

Bäcker, K

C. Bäcker, K. Beyer, and W. T. Strunz, Entropic witness for quantum memory in open system dynamics (2025), arXiv:2501.17660 [quant-ph]

2025
[52]

C.Bäcker,V.Link,andW.T.Strunz,VerifyingQuantumMemory intheDynamicsofSpinBosonModels(2025),arXiv:2505.13067 [quant-ph]

2025 arXiv
[53]

Schut, A

M. Schut, A. Geraci, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Micrometer- size spatial superpositions for the qgem protocol via screening and trapping, Physical Review Research6, 013199 (2024)

2024
[54]

Giarmatzi and F

C. Giarmatzi and F. Costa, Witnessing quantum memory in non-Markovian processes, Quantum5, 440 (2021), publisher: Verein zur Förderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwissenschaften

2021
[55]

Taranto, M

P. Taranto, M. T. Quintino, M. Murao, and S. Milz, Charac- terising the Hierarchy of Multi-time Quantum Processes with Classical Memory, Quantum8, 1328 (2024), publisher: Verein zur Förderung des Open Access Publizierens in den Quantenwis- senschaften

2024
[56]

Larson and T

J. Larson and T. Mavrogordatos,The Jaynes–Cummings Model and its Descendants (Second Edition): Modern research direc- tions(IOP Publishing, 2024)

2024
[57]

∑︁ 𝑖𝑗𝑚𝑛 |𝑖⟩⟨𝑗|⊗ 𝑈(𝑐𝑛|𝑖,𝑛⟩⟨ 𝑗,𝑚|𝑐∗ 𝑚)𝑈† # = trM

T.Laustsen,F.Verstraete,andS.J.vanEnk,Localvs.JointMeas- urementsfortheEntanglementofAssistance(2002),arXiv:quant- ph/0206192. Supplemental Material Konstantin Beyer,1 M. S. Kim,2 and Igor Pikovski1,3 1Department of Physics, Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey...

2002

Pith tools

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

[1] [49]

Bäcker, K

C. Bäcker, K. Beyer, and W. T. Strunz, Local Disclosure of Quantum Memory in Non-Markovian Dynamics, Physical Re- view Letters132, 060402 (2024)

work page 2024

[2] [1]

Marshall, C

W. Marshall, C. Simon, R. Penrose, and D. Bouwmeester, To- wards quantum superpositions of a mirror, Physical Review Letters 91, 130401 (2003)

work page 2003

[3] [2]

Up to time𝑡 = 𝜏, the two subsystems only interact gravitationally, leading to the joint unitary𝑈 in Eq. (5). At time𝑡 = 𝜏, local phase gates𝑆 = exp[−𝑖𝜋𝜎𝑧/4] are applied to both qubits (gates of this form can in principle be implemented by including a spin degree of freedom for each mass and applying a spin-dependent force). The local gates are assumed to ...

work page 2023

[4] [3]

Pikovski, M

I. Pikovski, M. R. Vanner, M. Aspelmeyer, M. Kim, and Č. Brukner, Probing planck-scale physics with quantum optics, Nature Physics8, 393 (2012)

work page 2012

[5] [4]

Bekenstein, Is a tabletop search for planck scale signals feasible?, Physical Review D86, 124040 (2012)

J. Bekenstein, Is a tabletop search for planck scale signals feasible?, Physical Review D86, 124040 (2012)

work page 2012

[6] [5]

H.Yang,H.Miao,D.-S.Lee,B.Helou,andY.Chen,Macroscopic quantum mechanics in a classical spacetime, Physical review letters 110, 170401 (2013)

work page 2013

[7] [6]

D.Kafri,J.Taylor,andG.Milburn,Aclassicalchannelmodelfor gravitational decoherence, New Journal of Physics16, 065020 (2014)

work page 2014

[8] [7]

Belenchia, D

A. Belenchia, D. M. Benincasa, S. Liberati, F. Marin, F. Marino, and A. Ortolan, Testing quantumgravity induced nonlocality via optomechanical quantum oscillators, Physical review letters116, 161303 (2016)

work page 2016