Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 84 references

Gravitational entanglement witness through Einstein ring image

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Einstein ring images could witness gravity-induced entanglement

desk verdict Careful theoretical extension of BMV to lensing images; the WPI witness is real but its observability formula is not yet well-defined. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.12997 v2 pith:PBGD73UJ submitted 2024-11-20 gr-qc quant-ph

Youka Kaku , Yasusada Nambu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcquant-ph
keywords gravity-inducedentanglementEinsteinringwhich-pathinformationSchrödinger-NewtongravityquantizedUnruh-DeWittdetectorwave-opticalgravitationallensingquantumsuperposition
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 turn a gravitational lensing image into a test of whether gravity itself is quantum. It studies a massless scalar field in a weak gravitational field created by a mass source in spatial superposition, comparing a quantized-gravity (QG) model, where the Newtonian potential is an operator and gravity generates entanglement, with the Schrödinger-Newton (SN) model, where the potential is an expectation value and no entanglement is produced. The central claim is that the two models give visibly different Einstein ring images: QG produces a composition of multiple rings, one per branch of the superposition, while SN produces a single ring at the averaged source position. The paper defines a which-path information (WPI) indicator whose image has nonzero ring structure in QG and is exactly zero in SN, so it works as a visual witness of gravity-induced entanglement. The value of the proposal is that it extends table-top gravity-entanglement tests from Newtonian potentials to a relativistic, lensing-based observable.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the scalar-field mode function $\phi^{(X)}(\omega_D, x_j)$, a Coulomb wavefunction describing the massless probe field scattered by a point source at $X$. In the QG model the field operator is decomposed as $\hat\phi^{(\hat X)}(x)=\int d^3X\,|X\rangle\langle X|\,\hat\phi^{(X)}(x)$, which entangles the field with the source position, while in the SN model a single averaged mode function $\phi^{(\mathrm{SN})}$ is used. The which-path information indicator is $Q_{\mathrm{WPI}}(x_A,x_B)=\frac12\int d^3X\,d^3X'\,|\mu(X)|^2|\mu(X')|^2\,[\phi^{(X)}-\phi^{(X')}](x_A)\,[\phi^{(X)*}-\phi^{(X')*}](x_B)$; it is nonzero only when the field carries information about which branch of the superposition scattered it. The imaging step is a Fourier lens-diffraction transform over detector B positions, and the Unruh-DeWitt detector expectation value $\mathrm{Tr}[\hat O_{AB}\hat\rho_{AB}]$ makes both the correlation function and the WPI indicator observer-accessible. The reconstruction uses the translational covariance $\phi^{(X)}(x)=\phi^{(X+\Delta)}(x+\Delta)$ to convert source-position differences into a displaced falling detector position.

What would settle it

Measure the WPI image for a mass source prepared in a two-location superposition along the line of sight, with separation large enough that the two classical ring radii are resolvable ($\Delta X \gtrsim \ell - 3\lambda_D/2$). QG predicts two resolved rings and nonzero WPI intensity; SN predicts one ring at the averaged position and exactly zero WPI intensity. Finding exactly zero WPI intensity together with a single ring would falsify the QG prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper argues that in a weak metric perturbed by a mass source in spatial superposition, the two gravity models are visually distinguishable. In the QG model the metric depends on the source-position operator, so the scalar field evolves differently for each branch and the correlation-function image is a probability-weighted sum of classical Einstein rings for each branch. In the SN model the metric is the expectation value of that operator, so the image is a single ring at the averaged source position. The new which-path information (WPI) indicator, built from the squared difference of mode functions at the two detectors, is nonzero in QG and identically zero in SN. Since QG creates gravity-induced entanglement while SN does not, a nonzero WPI image counts as visual evidence that gravity entangles the source with the probe field; the paper proves that zero linear entropy implies zero WPI, so the indicator cannot fire without entanglement.

Load-bearing premise

The witness requires the observer to place detector B at the gravity-model-dependent falling position of Eq. (68); if that trajectory cannot be controlled with a gravity-sensitive shallow trap, the WPI image cannot be assembled from detector measurements.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In the QG model, both the correlation-function image and the WPI image are weighted sums of classical Einstein-ring images for each branch of the mass-source superposition.
  • In the SN model, the correlation-function image is a single ring (or deformed arcs) centered on the ensemble-averaged source position, while the WPI image has exactly zero intensity.
  • A nonzero WPI image witnesses gravity-induced entanglement, because the paper proves zero linear entropy (no entanglement) forces the WPI indicator to vanish; the converse fails for symmetric detector placements.
  • The classical-image parameters—ring radius, radius variance, and ring center—let the observer read off the gravitational coupling, source distance, and transverse source position from a single image.
  • The proposal is a relativistic extension of table-top gravity-entanglement tests, but current cat-state separations fall far short of the resolvability condition, so near-term observation remains extremely challenging.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same mechanism holds for other relativistic observables, Shapiro time delay should also become branch-sensitive: QG would predict delay correlations that depend on which superposition branch the probe follows, while SN would give a single averaged delay.
  • Because environmental decoherence produces classically mixed images that mimic the QG blur, a practical experiment should compare ring counts at several source separations rather than look for blur alone.
  • The paper's quantum-reference-frame discussion points to a dual experiment: instead of superposing the source, one could place the detector in a spatial superposition in a classical spacetime and look for the analogous split image.
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 gravitational lensing of a massless quantum scalar field in weak-field spacetimes sourced by a mass in a spatial quantum superposition, comparing a first-quantized Newtonian 'QG' model with the semiclassical Schrödinger-Newton (SN) model. Two Unruh-DeWitt detectors provide observer-accessible quantities: the scalar-field two-point correlation function (CF) and a newly defined 'which-path information' (WPI) indicator. The authors show analytically and numerically that in the QG model the CF and WPI images are superpositions of classical Einstein rings corresponding to the localized mass positions, while in the SN model the CF image is a single deformed ring and the WPI image vanishes. They connect the WPI indicator to gravity-induced entanglement via linear-entropy inequalities and discuss experimental feasibility.

Significance. If the central witness claim holds, this is a novel relativistic extension of the BMV gravity-induced-entanglement idea, providing a concrete wave-optics observable that could in principle distinguish quantized from semiclassical gravity. The paper has clear strengths: the QG mode functions are exact Coulomb wave solutions; the analytic Einstein-ring formula (75) is checked against numerical images; the SN calculation uses standard eikonal and thin-lens methods; and the logical connection between the WPI indicator and linear entropy is proven in Appendix C. No parameters are fitted to produce the central multiple-ring versus single-ring distinction. The honest feasibility estimates in Section VI are also a strength. The main weakness is the operational definition of the WPI indicator as an observer-accessible quantity, which is load-bearing for the witness claim.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section IV C, Eqs. (67)-(68)] The claimed observer accessibility of the WPI indicator is not established, and as written Eq. (67) is internally inconsistent. The reduced density matrix ρ(t, xA, xB) is defined only for classical coordinate arguments, but Eq. (68) sets xB^(falling) = xB + \hat{X} in the QG case, making the second argument of ρ in Eq. (67) operator-valued. If one interprets Eq. (68) branchwise, as the falling-detector language suggests, then in the branch with mass position eigenvalue X the detector sits at xB + X, and the second term of Eq. (67) is evaluated at (xB + X) - X = xB; the second term then equals the first term and Eq. (67) yields QWPI = 0 in the QG case, contradicting Eq. (63). The derivation in Appendix C, Eq. (C9), is a valid identity only if the second term is read as a double integral over c-number positions X and X', i.e., ∫ dX dX' |µ(X)|^2 |µ(X')|^2 Tr[Ô ρ(t, xA, xB + X' - X)], which is not what Eq. (67) literally says. Since the WPI image is the only quantity that actually witnesses gravity-induced entanglement (the CF image in QG is identical to a classical |µ(X)|^2-weighted average and would also arise from a classical mixture), this issue is load-bearing. The manuscript must either provide a well-defined measurement protocol that realizes the second term, or explicitly reposition the WPI indicator as a theoretical diagnostic rather than an observer-accessible observable.
  2. [Section IV C and Section VI] The witness statement should be scoped more carefully. The contrapositive of Eq. (65) is proven under the assumption that the total system is in a pure state and evolves unitarily; the paper itself notes in Section VI that environmental noise will make the state mixed in any realistic setting, in which case linear entropy is no longer a valid entanglement indicator. The text should state explicitly that the WPI witness applies only to the idealized closed-system model, not to the decohered experimental situation described in the feasibility discussion. This does not undermine the theoretical calculation, but it is important for readers who may take the 'witness' terminology as a statement about direct experimental certification.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (39)] In the SN monopole-approximation mode function, the argument contains ⟨\hat{Z}^2⟩_M where the mean position ⟨\hat{Z}⟩_M is intended; please correct this typo.
  2. [Appendix E, Eq. (E5)] The replacement 1F1[-iγ; 1; z] → J0 uses a limit that is proven for a real parameter ν, whereas here the first argument is imaginary. The numerical consistency checks are reassuring, but the approximation is uncontrolled as stated; please add a justification or a discussion of its regime of validity, or explicitly present Eq. (75) as a numerical fit supported by the figures.
  3. [Section V A and Appendix D] The Fourier transform in Eq. (70) uses the opposite sign convention from the lens-imaging derivation in Eq. (D3); the text mentions this but it would help readers to also note that this sign choice only inverts the image and does not affect the ring radii shown in the figures.
  4. [Throughout] There are several typographical slips: 'Feynmann' (Section I), 'exsits' (Section II A), 'spacetiems' (Section VII), and inconsistent rendering of 'Schrödinger-Newton' in the abstract and Introduction. These should be corrected.
  5. [Section VI, Eq. (91)] The required separation for unity WPI intensity is 2×10^14 m, which is many orders of magnitude beyond current capabilities; the sentence describing this as 'incredibly challenging' understates the result. I suggest saying explicitly that the WPI-image observation is not currently feasible, while the theoretical distinction remains valid.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the Einstein-ring and WPI images are derived from the model Hamiltonians, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citation chain.

full rationale

This paper's derivation chain is self-contained. The QG and SN spacetimes are defined by the Hamiltonians in Eqs. (4)-(5); the scalar-field mode functions for QG are obtained as exact Coulomb wave functions (Eq. (22), Appendix A1), and the SN mode functions are derived by a stated diffraction-integral approximation (Eqs. (40)-(41), Appendix A2). No parameter is fitted to the images: the Einstein-ring radius and variance in Eq. (75) are derived analytically and checked numerically, and the CF and WPI images (Eqs. (78)-(80)) are direct integrals over these mode functions. The WPI indicator is introduced independently in Eq. (62), and its relation to linear entropy is proved in Appendix C rather than assumed. The QG-vs-SN contrast (multiple rings versus single ring or vanishing WPI) follows from the model Hamiltonians, so it is a derived consequence rather than an input. Self-citations (e.g., Refs. [33,34,45] and the BMV papers [6,7]) are contextual and not load-bearing. One operational caveat should be noted: Eq. (68) defines the falling-detector position x_B^(falling) in a model-dependent way, so reconstructing Q_WPI via Eq. (67) requires knowing which gravity model governs the detector trajectory; this affects observability and is flagged in Section IV C, but it does not make the central derivation circular, because Q_WPI itself is defined in Eq. (62) and evaluated from the model Hamiltonians. The paper also quantifies the extreme experimental difficulty in Section VI. Overall, no step reduces to its own input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the model definitions (QG vs SN) and on several operational and technical assumptions, most notably the feasibility of the 'falling detector' position and the SN approximations. The numerical parameters are illustrative and do not affect the qualitative distinction.

free parameters (4)
  • Gravitational coupling gamma = 100 (in units c/omega_D = 1)
    Chosen for numerical illustrations in Figs. 6-10; not fitted to data, and the qualitative ring-number difference is independent of its value.
  • Detector aperture radius ell = 200 (unit c/omega_D)
    Sets the integration domain for the Fourier imaging in Eq. (70). Chosen by hand for plots.
  • Observer distance z_D = 2500 (unit c/omega_D)
    Distance of detector plane from origin, chosen for plots and analytic ring formulas.
  • Scalar field frequency omega_D = c/omega_D = 1 in plots; feasibility estimate uses 10^15 Hz
    Physical input that sets the unit scale; not fitted. In the feasibility estimate it is matched to a 1 micron optical transition.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption Weak-field metric with Newtonian potential: ds^2 = -(1+2Phi/c^2)c^2dt^2 + (1-2Phi/c^2)dx^2 (Eq. 3).
    The entire calculation is performed in this metric, ignoring O(1/c^4) terms.
  • domain assumption Incoming scalar field boundary condition: phi ~ exp(i omega z/c) for z<0, |x|->infinity (Eq. 21).
    The mode functions and the ground state are defined relative to this boundary condition; a different boundary condition would change the images.
  • domain assumption Mass source is static in a Schrodinger cat state (Eq. 27) with negligible self-gravity and time evolution.
    The paper explicitly assumes the source does not evolve; in the BMV proposals the source moves, which would modify the state.
  • domain assumption Eikonal and thin-lens approximations for the SN mode function (Appendix A 2): omega^2 phi / c^2 >> d_z^2 phi and scattering localized at z = <Z_hat>.
    These approximations enable the diffraction integral solution for the SN case; if inaccurate, the single SN ring could be deformed differently.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar field vacuum |0(QG)> is the same for all mass positions, annihilated by a single set of operators a_omega (Eq. 19).
    In standard QFT in curved spacetime each background has its own vacuum; here a global vacuum is chosen, which affects the two-point function.
  • domain assumption The observer can control detector B to follow the gravity-model-dependent falling position x_B^falling (Eq. 68).
    This is needed to reconstruct the WPI indicator from detector measurements; the paper suggests a shallow trapping potential but does not demonstrate its experimental viability.
  • ad hoc to paper Non-exact hypergeometric limit in Appendix E: 1F1[-i gamma; 1; z] approximated by J0 and then by cos (Eq. E5).
    The authors note the first argument is imaginary and apply a real-variable property 'forcefully', checking numerically; the analytic ring formula depends on this approximation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravitational entanglement witness through Einstein ring image." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PBGD73UJ

@misc{pith2026241112997,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravitational entanglement witness through Einstein ring image},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PBGD73UJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.12997}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the interplay between quantum theory and gravity by exploring gravitational lensing and Einstein ring images in a weak gravitational field induced by a mass source in spatial quantum superposition. We analyze a quantum massless scalar field propagating in two distinct models of gravity: the first quantized Newtonian gravity (QG) model, which generates quantum entanglement between the mass source and other systems, and the Schr\"odinger-Newton (SN) gravity model, which does not produce entanglement. Visualizing the two-point correlation function of the scalar field, we find that the QG model produces a composition of multiple Einstein rings, reflecting the spatial superposition of the mass source. By contrast, the SN model yields a single deformed ring image, representing a classical spacetime configuration. Furthermore, we introduce a specific quantity named the which-path information indicator and visualize its image. The QG model again reveals multiple Einstein rings, while the image intensity in the SN model notably vanishes. Our findings provide a visual approach to witness gravity-induced entanglement through distinct features in Einstein ring images. This study advances our understanding of quantum effects in general relativistic contexts and establishes a foundation for future studies of other relativistic phenomena.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.12997 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Setup of our proposal: The background spacetime is a weak gravitational field generated by a mass source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The real part of the mode function for the mass source at the origin Re [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Schematic of time evolution in the curved spacetime induced by a superposed mass source. The mass source [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The existence of the WPI indicator in the QG spacetime depends on the detector arrangement. In most [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The imaging process setup using two UDW detectors. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: We consider the classical curved spacetime induced by a point mass source located at the origin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The CF images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The CF images [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The CF images and WPI images for the SN and QG models, where the mass source is superposed at two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The CF images and WPI images for the SN and QG models, where the mass source is superposed at two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Path integral formalism is used to obtain the mode function solution in the SN spacetime. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Imaging process using an optical convex lens. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p036_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: The numerical plot of the CF image intensity and its comparison with the analytically evaluated position [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p039_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: The Einstein ring images for the mass source superposed along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p040_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: The Einstein ring images for the mass source superposed along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p042_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: The Einstein ring images for the mass source that is superposed symmetrically along the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p043_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

84 extracted references · 70 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (4): Φ(QG)(x, ˆX) = −GM |x − ˆX|

    Coulomb wave function as the mode function solution in the QG spacetime Recall that the quantized gravity (QG) spacetime is described by the weak gravitational field with the following Newtonian potential, as given in Eq. (4): Φ(QG)(x, ˆX) = −GM |x − ˆX| . (A1) The mode function of the scalar field operator in the QG spacetime follows the Schr¨ odinger-li...

  2. [2]

    Lagrangian

    Mode function solution for the Schr¨ odinger-Newton gravity model using the diffraction integral formula This section investigates the mode function solution for the Schr¨ odinger-Newton (SN) gravity model, particularly when the mass source is not localized in the x, y-directions; the final expression is given in Eq. (40). The SN spacetime is given by a w...

  3. [3]

    Observation of a gravitational aharonov-bohm effect

    Chris Overstreet, Peter Asenbaum, Joseph Curti, Minjeong Kim, and Mark A Kasevich. Observation of a gravitational aharonov-bohm effect. Science, 375(6577):226–229, 2022

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    Observation of gravitationally induced quantum interference

    Roberto Colella, Albert W Overhauser, and Samuel A Werner. Observation of gravitationally induced quantum interference. Physical Review Letters, 34(23):1472, 1975

    1975

  5. [5]

    Phase shift in an atom interferometer due to spacetime curvature across its wave function

    Peter Asenbaum, Chris Overstreet, Tim Kovachy, Daniel D Brown, Jason M Hogan, and Mark A Kasevich. Phase shift in an atom interferometer due to spacetime curvature across its wave function. Physical review letters, 118(18):183602, 2017

    work page 2017

  6. [6]

    Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity

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

    work page 2017

  7. [7]

    Quantum test of the universality of free fall

    Dennis Schlippert, Jonas Hartwig, Henning Albers, Logan L Richardson, Christian Schubert, Albert Roura, Wolfgang P Schleich, Wolfgang Ertmer, and Ernst M Rasel. Quantum test of the universality of free fall. Physical Review Letters, 112(20):203002, 2014

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    DeWitt-Morette and D

    C. DeWitt-Morette and D. Rickles. The Role of Gravitation in Physics: Report from the 1957 Chapel Hill Conference. Max Planck Institute for the History of Science, Berlin, 2011. 44

    work page 1957

Show all 84 references
  1. [9]

    Problems with the newton–schr¨ odinger equations

    C Anastopoulos and BL Hu. Problems with the newton–schr¨ odinger equations. New Journal of Physics, 16(8):085007, 2014

    2014

  2. [10]

    Extreme Universe

    In the case of the QG model, the images exhibited the composition of multiple Einstein rings, which can be interpreted as a manifestation of quantum decoherence. By contrast, in the SN model, the CF image revealed a single deformed Einstein ring, while the WPI image showed no ...

  3. [11]

    Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity

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

    2017

  4. [12]

    The schr¨ odinger–newton equation and its foundations

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

    2014

  5. [13]

    Systems of self-gravitating particles in general relativity and the concept of an equation of state

    Remo Ruffini and Silvano Bonazzola. Systems of self-gravitating particles in general relativity and the concept of an equation of state. Phys. Rev., 187:1767–1783, Nov 1969

    1969

  6. [14]

    Relativistic models of nonlinear quantum mechanics

    TWB Kibble. Relativistic models of nonlinear quantum mechanics. Communications in Mathematical Physics, 64:73–82, 1978

    1978

  7. [15]

    Non-linear coupling of quantum theory and classical gravity

    TWB Kibble and S Randjbar-Daemi. Non-linear coupling of quantum theory and classical gravity. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General, 13(1):141, 1980

    1980

  8. [16]

    Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations

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

    1989

  9. [17]

    The gravity-related decoherence master equation from hybrid dynamics

    Lajos Di´ osi. The gravity-related decoherence master equation from hybrid dynamics. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, volume 306, page 012006. IOP Publishing, 2011

    2011

  10. [18]

    On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction

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

    1996

  11. [19]

    On the gravitization of quantum mechanics 1: Quantum state reduction

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

    2014

  12. [20]

    A classical channel model for gravitational decoherence

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

    2014

  13. [21]

    Sourcing semiclassical gravity from spontaneously localized quantum matter

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

    2016

  14. [22]

    Gravitational decoherence

    Angelo Bassi, Andr´ e Großardt, and Hendrik Ulbricht. Gravitational decoherence. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 34(19):193002, 2017

    2017

  15. [23]

    Strongly incoherent gravity

    Daniel Carney and Jacob M Taylor. Strongly incoherent gravity. arXiv preprint arXiv:2301.08378, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

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

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

    2023

  17. [25]

    Correlations and signaling in the schr¨ odinger–newton model

    Jacek Aleksander Gruca, Ankit Kumar, Ray Ganardi, Paramasivan Arumugam, Karolina Kropielnicka, and Tomasz Pa- terek. Correlations and signaling in the schr¨ odinger–newton model. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 41(24):245014, nov 2024

    2024

  18. [26]

    Coherence limits in lattice atom interferometry at the one-minute scale

    Cristian D Panda, Matthew Tao, James Egelhoff, Miguel Ceja, Victoria Xu, and Holger M¨ uller. Coherence limits in lattice atom interferometry at the one-minute scale. Nature Physics, pages 1–6, 2024

    2024

  19. [27]

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

    Marius Bild, Matteo Fadel, Yu Yang, Uwe Von L¨ upke, Phillip Martin, Alessandro Bruno, and Yiwen Chu. Schr¨ odinger cat states of a 16-microgram mechanical oscillator. Science, 380(6642):274–278, 2023

    2023

  20. [28]

    Quantum superposition of molecules beyond 25 kda

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

    2019

  21. [29]

    Measurement of gravitational coupling between millimetre-sized masses

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

    2021

  22. [30]

    New test of the gravitational 1/r 2 law at separations down to 52 µ m

    JG Lee, EG Adelberger, TS Cook, SM Fleischer, and BR Heckel. New test of the gravitational 1/r 2 law at separations down to 52 µ m. Physical Review Letters, 124(10):101101, 2020

    2020

  23. [31]

    Optomechanical quantum cavendish experiment

    Abdulrahim Al Balushi, Wan Cong, and Robert B Mann. Optomechanical quantum cavendish experiment. Physical Review A, 98(4):043811, 2018

    2018

  24. [32]

    Quantum correlations of light mediated by gravity

    Haixing Miao, Denis Martynov, Huan Yang, and Animesh Datta. Quantum correlations of light mediated by gravity. Physical Review A, 101(6):063804, 2020

    2020

  25. [33]

    Gravity-induced entanglement in optomechanical systems

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

    2020

  26. [34]

    Quantum signature of gravity in optomechanical systems with conditional measurement

    Daisuke Miki, Akira Matsumura, and Kazuhiro Yamamoto. Quantum signature of gravity in optomechanical systems with conditional measurement. Physical Review D, 109(6):064090, 2024

    2024

  27. [35]

    Observable quantum entanglement due to gravity

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

    2020

  28. [36]

    Enhancement of quantum gravity signal in an optomechanical experiment

    Youka Kaku, Tomohiro Fujita, and Akira Matsumura. Enhancement of quantum gravity signal in an optomechanical experiment. Physical Review D, 108(10):106014, 2023

    2023

  29. [37]

    Inverted oscillators for testing gravity-induced quantum entanglement

    Tomohiro Fujita, Youka Kaku, Akira Matumura, and Yuta Michimura. Inverted oscillators for testing gravity-induced quantum entanglement. arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.14552, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Newton, entanglement, and the graviton

    Daniel Carney. Newton, entanglement, and the graviton. Physical Review D, 105(2):024029, 2022

    2022

  31. [39]

    What gravity mediated entanglement can really tell us about quantum gravity

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

    2023

  32. [40]

    Quantum superposition of massive objects and the quantization of gravity

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

    2018

  33. [41]

    Gravitationally mediated entanglement: Newtonian field versus gravitons

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

    2022

  34. [42]

    Complementarity and causal propagation of decoherence by mea- 45 surement in relativistic quantum field theories

    Yoshimasa Hidaka, Satoshi Iso, and Kengo Shimada. Complementarity and causal propagation of decoherence by mea- 45 surement in relativistic quantum field theories. Physical Review D, 106(7):076018, 2022

    2022

  35. [43]

    Quantum uncertainty of gravitational field and entangle- ment in superposed massive particles

    Yuuki Sugiyama, Akira Matsumura, and Kazuhiro Yamamoto. Quantum uncertainty of gravitational field and entangle- ment in superposed massive particles. Physical Review D, 108(10):105019, 2023

    2023

  36. [44]

    Unveiling gravity’s quantum fingerprint through gravitational waves

    Partha Nandi and Bibhas Ranjan Majhi. Unveiling gravity’s quantum fingerprint through gravitational waves. arXiv preprint arXiv:2403.11253, 2024

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Relativity of quantum superpositions

    Magdalena Zych, Fabio Costa, and Timothy C Ralph. Relativity of quantum superpositions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.04999, 2018

    2018 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Quantum states of fields for quantum split sources

    Lin-Qing Chen, Flaminia Giacomini, and Carlo Rovelli. Quantum states of fields for quantum split sources. Quantum, 7:958, 2023

    2023

  39. [47]

    Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames

    Flaminia Giacomini, Esteban Castro-Ruiz, and ˇCaslav Brukner. Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames. Nature communications, 10(1):494, 2019

    2019

  40. [48]

    Quantumness of gravity in harmonically trapped particles

    Youka Kaku, Shin’ya Maeda, Yasusada Nambu, and Yuki Osawa. Quantumness of gravity in harmonically trapped particles. Physical Review D, 106(12):126005, 2022

    2022

  41. [49]

    Relativity and decoherence of spacetime superpositions

    Joshua Foo, Robert B Mann, and Magdalena Zych. Relativity and decoherence of spacetime superpositions. arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03259, 2023

    2023 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Schr¨ odinger’s cat for de sitter spacetime

    Joshua Foo, Robert B Mann, and Magdalena Zych. Schr¨ odinger’s cat for de sitter spacetime. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 38(11):115010, 2021

    2021

  43. [51]

    Quantum signatures of black hole mass superpositions

    Joshua Foo, Cemile Senem Arabaci, Magdalena Zych, and Robert B Mann. Quantum signatures of black hole mass superpositions. Physical Review Letters, 129(18):181301, 2022

    2022

  44. [52]

    Quantum superpositions of minkowski space- time

    Joshua Foo, Cemile Senem Arabaci, Magdalena Zych, and Robert B Mann. Quantum superpositions of minkowski space- time. Physical Review D, 107(4):045014, 2023

    2023

  45. [53]

    Quantum conformal symmetries for spacetimes in superposition

    Viktoria Kabel, Anne-Catherine de la Hamette, Esteban Castro-Ruiz, and ˇCaslav Brukner. Quantum conformal symmetries for spacetimes in superposition. arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.00021, 2022

    2022 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Noise and decoherence induced by gravitons

    Sugumi Kanno, Jiro Soda, and Junsei Tokuda. Noise and decoherence induced by gravitons. Physical Review D, 103(4):044017, 2021

    2021

  47. [55]

    Signatures of quantum gravity in the gravitational self-interaction of photons

    Zain Mehdi, Joseph J Hope, and Simon A Haine. Signatures of quantum gravity in the gravitational self-interaction of photons. Physical Review Letters, 130(24):240203, 2023

    2023

  48. [56]

    Gravitational optomechanics: Photon-matter en- tanglement via graviton exchange

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

    2023

  49. [57]

    Spacetime and geometry

    Sean M Carroll. Spacetime and geometry. Cambridge University Press, 2019

    2019

  50. [58]

    Schneider, J

    P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, and E.E. Falco. Gravitational Lenses. Astronomy and Astrophysics Library. Springer, 1999

    1999

  51. [59]

    Unusual radio source mg1131+ 0456: a possible einstein ring

    JN Hewitt, EL Turner, DP Schneider, BF Burke, GI Langston, and CR Lawrence. Unusual radio source mg1131+ 0456: a possible einstein ring. Nature, 333(6173):537–540, 1988

    1988

  52. [60]

    First m87 event horizon telescope results

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration et al. First m87 event horizon telescope results. i. the shadow of the supermassive black hole. arXiv preprint arXiv:1906.11238, 2019

    1906 arXiv

  53. [61]

    First sagittarius a* event horizon telescope results

    Kazunori Akiyama, Antxon Alberdi, Walter Alef, Juan Carlos Algaba, Richard Anantua, Keiichi Asada, Rebecca Azulay, Uwe Bach, Anne-Kathrin Baczko, David Ball, et al. First sagittarius a* event horizon telescope results. i. the shadow of the supermassive black hole in the center...

    2022

  54. [62]

    Wave optics in gravitational lensing.Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 133:137–153, 1999

    Takahiro T Nakamura and Shuji Deguchi. Wave optics in gravitational lensing.Progress of Theoretical Physics Supplement, 133:137–153, 1999

    1999

  55. [63]

    Wave optics and image formation in gravitational lensing

    Yasusada Nambu. Wave optics and image formation in gravitational lensing. In Journal of Physics: Conference Series, volume 410, page 012036. IOP Publishing, 2013

    2013

  56. [64]

    Viewing black holes by waves

    Ken-ichiro Kanai and Yasusada Nambu. Viewing black holes by waves. Classical and Quantum Gravity, 30(17):175002, 2013

    2013

  57. [65]

    Wave optics in spacetimes with compact gravitating object

    Yasusada Nambu, Sousuke Noda, and Yuichiro Sakai. Wave optics in spacetimes with compact gravitating object. Physical Review D, 100(6):064037, 2019

    2019

  58. [66]

    Interferometry of black holes with hawking radiation

    Yasusada Nambu and Sousuke Noda. Interferometry of black holes with hawking radiation. Physical Review D, 105(4):045022, 2022

    2022

  59. [67]

    Lensing of vacuum entanglement near schwarzschild black holes

    Jo˜ ao GA Carib´ e, Robert H Jonsson, Marc Casals, Achim Kempf, and Eduardo Mart ´ ın-Mart ´ ınez. Lensing of vacuum entanglement near schwarzschild black holes. Physical Review D, 108(2):025016, 2023

    2023

  60. [68]

    Astronomical image blurring from transversely correlated quantum gravity fluctuations

    Vincent SH Lee, Kathryn M Zurek, and Yanbei Chen. Astronomical image blurring from transversely correlated quantum gravity fluctuations. Physical Review D, 109(8):084005, 2024

    2024

  61. [69]

    Observational signatures of quantum gravity in interferometers

    Erik P Verlinde and Kathryn M Zurek. Observational signatures of quantum gravity in interferometers. Physics Letters B, 822:136663, 2021

    2021

  62. [70]

    Notes on black-hole evaporation

    William G Unruh. Notes on black-hole evaporation. Physical Review D, 14(4):870, 1976

    1976

  63. [71]

    Unruh-dewitt detectors in quantum superpositions of trajectories

    Joshua Foo, Sho Onoe, and Magdalena Zych. Unruh-dewitt detectors in quantum superpositions of trajectories. Physical Review D, 102(8):085013, 2020

    2020

  64. [72]

    Notes on quantum field theory in curved spacetime: Problems relating to the concept of particles and hamiltonian formalism

    Vladimir Mashkevich. Notes on quantum field theory in curved spacetime: Problems relating to the concept of particles and hamiltonian formalism. arXiv:0706.1802, 2007

    2007 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Alexander R. H. Smith. Detectors, Reference Frames, and Time. Springer Theses, 2019

    2019

  66. [74]

    Quantum Fields in Curved Space

    Nicholas David Birrell and Paul Charles William Davies. Quantum Fields in Curved Space. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 1982

    1982

  67. [75]

    Springer handbook of atomic, molecular, and optical physics

    Gordon WF Drake. Springer handbook of atomic, molecular, and optical physics. Springer Science & Business Media, 2007

    2007

  68. [76]

    Quantum mechanics: non-relativistic theory, volume 3

    Lev Davidovich Landau and Evgenii Mikhailovich Lifshitz. Quantum mechanics: non-relativistic theory, volume 3. Elsevier, 46 2013

    2013

  69. [77]

    Wave optics in black hole spacetimes: The schwarzschild case.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33(7):075011, 2016

    Yasusada Nambu and Sousuke Noda. Wave optics in black hole spacetimes: The schwarzschild case.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33(7):075011, 2016

    2016

  70. [78]

    Eugene Hecht. Optics. Pearson Education India, 2012

    2012

  71. [79]

    Introduction to Fourier optics

    Joseph W Goodman. Introduction to Fourier optics. Roberts and Company publishers, 2005

    2005

  72. [80]

    Optics: principles and applications

    Kailash K Sharma. Optics: principles and applications. Elsevier, 2006

    2006

  73. [81]

    Realization of laser intensity over 10 23 w/cm 2

    Jin Woo Yoon, Yeong Gyu Kim, Il Woo Choi, Jae Hee Sung, Hwang Woon Lee, Seong Ku Lee, and Chang Hee Nam. Realization of laser intensity over 10 23 w/cm 2. Optica, 8(5):630–635, 2021

    2021

  74. [82]

    Quantum superposition at the half-metre scale

    Tim Kovachy, Peter Asenbaum, Chris Overstreet, Christine A Donnelly, Susannah M Dickerson, Alex Sugarbaker, Jason M Hogan, and Mark A Kasevich. Quantum superposition at the half-metre scale. Nature, 528(7583):530–533, 2015

    2015

  75. [83]

    Computable measure of entanglement

    Guifr´ e Vidal and Reinhard F Werner. Computable measure of entanglement. Physical Review A, 65(3):032314, 2002

    2002

  76. [84]

    Laguerre function: Operations (formula 07.02.25.0001.01)

    Wolfram Research. Laguerre function: Operations (formula 07.02.25.0001.01). http://functions.wolfram.com/07.02. 25.0001.01. Accessed: 2024-11-07

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.