Collapse-based models for gravity do not violate the entanglement-based witness of non-classicality
Pith reviewed 2026-05-22 22:20 UTC · model grok-4.3
The pith
Collapse-based models for gravity have nonlocal features that violate locality.
A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.
Core claim
Collapse-based models for gravity do not violate the entanglement-based witness of non-classicality because they have nonlocal features, violating the principle of locality. Recent claims that these models can predict gravitationally induced entanglement are therefore not in conflict with the witness, which requires local means only.
What carries the argument
The entanglement-based witness of non-classicality, which concludes that a system is non-classical if it creates entanglement by local means only; the analysis identifies nonlocal features in collapse models that prevent them from satisfying the local-means condition.
If this is right
- Gravitationally induced entanglement generated within collapse models does not count as a local classical mechanism and therefore does not challenge the witness.
- The witness remains applicable for testing whether gravity is fundamentally quantum.
- Any proposed classical model of gravity must be checked for hidden nonlocality before it can serve as a counterexample.
- Claims treating collapse models as local are inconsistent with the models' underlying dynamics.
Where Pith is reading between the lines
- This analysis implies that locality checks should be applied to other proposed classical gravity models that involve spontaneous collapse.
- It connects the witness to broader questions about signaling and causality in gravitational systems.
- One could extend the argument by deriving explicit bounds on signaling speeds permitted by specific collapse models.
Load-bearing premise
The nonlocal character of collapse-based models follows from their general structure without requiring model-specific details or parameters.
What would settle it
An explicit demonstration that the Diósi-Penrose model or a similar collapse model generates entanglement between two masses using strictly local operations and no nonlocal influences would falsify the central claim.
Figures
read the original abstract
It is known that an entanglement-based witness of non-classicality can be applied to testing quantum effects in gravity. Specifically, if a system can create entanglement between two quantum probes by local means only, then it must be non-classical. Recently, claims have been made that collapse-based models of classical gravity, i.e. Di\'osi-Penrose model, can predict gravitationally induced entanglement between quantum objects, resulting in gravitationally induced entanglement is insufficient to conclude that gravity is fundamentally quantum, contrary to the witness statement. Here we vindicate the witness. We analyze the underlying physics of collapse-based models for gravity and show that these models have nonlocal features, violating the principle of locality.
Editorial analysis
A structured set of objections, weighed in public.
Referee Report
Summary. The paper claims that collapse-based models for gravity (e.g., Diósi-Penrose) possess inherent nonlocal features that violate the locality condition of the entanglement-based witness of non-classicality. Consequently, these models cannot generate gravitationally induced entanglement via strictly local operations and do not constitute counterexamples to the witness, vindicating its use as a test for quantum gravity.
Significance. If the nonlocality analysis holds and is shown to apply directly to the two-probe witness configurations, the result would strengthen the entanglement witness by closing a proposed loophole from classical collapse models. It would also clarify the role of locality in distinguishing classical versus quantum gravitational interactions, providing a conceptual clarification rather than new empirical predictions or derivations.
major comments (1)
- [Analysis of underlying physics (near abstract and main argument)] The central claim requires demonstrating that the nonlocal collapse term in the two-probe reduced dynamics cannot be recast as local operations for the specific probe configurations used in recent GIE claims. The abstract and overall argument invoke general nonlocality of collapse models but do not appear to contain an explicit derivation or comparison showing this for the witness setup; this is load-bearing for refuting the counter-claims.
minor comments (2)
- Clarify the precise definition of 'local means only' used in the witness and how it maps onto the collapse dynamics; this would aid readability.
- Add explicit citations or comparisons to the specific recent claims being addressed to make the refutation more targeted.
Simulated Author's Rebuttal
We thank the referee for their careful reading and for highlighting the importance of explicitly connecting the general nonlocality result to the two-probe configurations used in recent GIE claims. We address the single major comment below.
read point-by-point responses
-
Referee: [Analysis of underlying physics (near abstract and main argument)] The central claim requires demonstrating that the nonlocal collapse term in the two-probe reduced dynamics cannot be recast as local operations for the specific probe configurations used in recent GIE claims. The abstract and overall argument invoke general nonlocality of collapse models but do not appear to contain an explicit derivation or comparison showing this for the witness setup; this is load-bearing for refuting the counter-claims.
Authors: We agree that an explicit derivation for the two-probe reduced dynamics is necessary to fully close the loophole. The manuscript establishes that collapse models are nonlocal in general through the structure of the collapse term, which violates the locality assumption underlying the witness. However, to make this connection direct and load-bearing, the revised version will include a new subsection that (i) writes the two-probe reduced master equation for the Diósi-Penrose-type interaction, (ii) isolates the nonlocal cross term, and (iii) shows by explicit comparison that this term cannot be reproduced by any pair of local completely-positive maps acting separately on each probe. This addition will directly refute the counter-claims that such models can generate GIE via strictly local operations. revision: yes
Circularity Check
No significant circularity; derivation relies on standard locality analysis
full rationale
The paper claims to vindicate the entanglement witness by showing collapse models (e.g., Diósi-Penrose) have nonlocal features that violate the locality principle required for the witness. This rests on examining the models' underlying physics and the witness definition from prior literature, without any quoted reduction of a prediction to a fitted parameter, self-definition of X in terms of Y, or load-bearing self-citation chain. No equations or steps in the provided abstract or description exhibit the enumerated circular patterns; the central claim has independent content based on external notions of locality and non-classicality witnesses. This is the expected non-finding for a paper whose argument is self-contained against standard benchmarks.
Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger
axioms (1)
- domain assumption An entanglement-based witness of non-classicality applies when a system creates entanglement between two quantum probes by local means only.
Reference graph
Works this paper leans on
-
[1]
About the gravitational field.The dynam- ics of collapse-based models of gravity include two pro- cesses. The first one is the monitoring process (which can weakly measure the density) and the evolution of quan- tum matter satisfying the SME Eq. (3). The second one concerns the back-action on the gravitational field and the sequential evolution. The inter...
-
[2]
About the entanglement generation.The entanglement between masses can be generated in the DP model [12, 13], but it is not induced by gravity. The nonrival hidden detector induces the entanglement of the DP model [11–13] with the non-trivial choice of γrs = 2G 1 |r−s|. This correlator is nonlocal, as mentioned in other nonlinear gravity works [14]. We rev...
-
[3]
About the quantum hidden degree of freedom in the monitoring process.In the collapse- based model of gravity [11–13], the SEM (see Eq. 3) is used to analyze the DP and CML models. This SME stems from the continuous measurement theory in which there is a hidden degree of freedom that can monitor the observable of interest [11]. In the DP case, this hidden ...
- [4]
- [5]
-
[6]
S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroˇ s, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. Kim, and G. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240401 (2017)
work page 2017
- [7]
-
[8]
D. Deutsch and C. Marletto, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sci- ences471, 20140540 (2015)
work page 2015
- [9]
-
[10]
Pl´ avala, Physics Reports General probabilistic theo- ries: An introduction,1033, 1 (2023)
M. Pl´ avala, Physics Reports General probabilistic theo- ries: An introduction,1033, 1 (2023)
work page 2023
-
[11]
Penrose, General relativity and gravitation28, 581 (1996)
R. Penrose, General relativity and gravitation28, 581 (1996)
work page 1996
- [12]
- [13]
-
[14]
A. Tilloy and L. Di´ osi, Physical Review D93, 10.1103/physrevd.93.024026 (2016)
-
[15]
D. Trillo and M. Navascu´ es, The di´ osi-penrose model of classical gravity predicts gravitationally induced entan- glement (2024), arXiv:2411.02287 [quant-ph]
-
[16]
O. Angeli and M. Carlesso, Positivity and entanglement in markovian open quantum systems and hybrid classical- quantum theories of gravity (2025), arXiv:2501.16253 [quant-ph]
-
[17]
M. Bahrami, A. Großardt, S. Donadi, and A. Bassi, New Journal of Physics16, 115007 (2014)
work page 2014
-
[18]
H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum measure- ment and control(Cambridge university press, 2009)
work page 2009
-
[19]
L. Di´ osi, N. Gisin, and W. T. Strunz, Physical Review A 61, 022108 (2000)
work page 2000
-
[20]
Di´ osi, Physica Scripta2014, 014004 (2014)
L. Di´ osi, Physica Scripta2014, 014004 (2014)
work page 2014
- [21]
-
[22]
B. O. Koopman, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences17, 315 (1931)
work page 1931
- [23]
- [24]
- [25]
- [26]
-
[27]
C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Classical gravity can- not mediate entanglement by local means (2025), arXiv:2510.19969 [quant-ph]
-
[28]
No, classical gravity does not entangle quantized matter fields
L. Di´ osi, No, classical gravity does not entangle quantized matter fields (2025), arXiv:2511.00852 [quant-ph]
work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025
-
[29]
C. Marletto, J. Oppenheim, V. Vedral, and E. Wilson, Classical gravity cannot mediate entanglement (2025), arXiv:2511.07348 [quant-ph]
discussion (0)
Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.