Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 66 references

Manifestation of quantum entanglement between harmonic oscillators in de Sitter

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read In de Sitter spacetime, two harmonic oscillators exchanging a massless scalar field become entangled at late times only when they lie within the Hubble horizon and oscillate at a rate comparable to the expansion rate of the universe.

desk verdict A timely question and a clean flat-spacetime limit, but the central late-time concurrence rests on an unjustified analytic continuation of a divergent integral. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.11422 v1 pith:7IZKJNKV submitted 2025-06-13 gr-qc quant-ph

Sumanta Chakraborty , Anupam Mazumdar , Ritapriya Pradhan This is my paper
classification gr-qcquant-ph MSC 83C4781P4081T2083F05 PACS 04.62.+v03.65.Ud98.80.-k
keywords deSitterspacetimequantumentanglementharmonicoscillatorconcurrencemasslessscalarfieldHubblehorizonBunch-Daviesvacuumtime-dependentperturbationtheory
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 argues that two identical harmonic oscillators coupled by a massless scalar field in de Sitter space develop quantum entanglement that survives at late times only in a specific kinematic window: separation smaller than the Hubble radius and frequency comparable to the expansion rate. For larger separations or higher frequencies, the late-time concurrence becomes negligibly small. The authors derive an effective interaction Hamiltonian with an exponential damping factor and compute the concurrence through time-dependent perturbation theory, obtaining a closed asymptotic formula. The result matters because it predicts when quantum correlations between two masses persist under cosmological expansion, with potential implications for probing the quantum nature of gravity or scalar-mediated fifth forces.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the effective two-oscillator Hamiltonian obtained after tracing out the scalar field, which in cosmological coordinates takes the form $\hat{H}^{(t)}_{AB} = \frac{\sqrt{3}\,m^2}{8\pi\, a(t)\,d} \exp\!\left(-|x_{0i}|\, a(t)\,d\,H\right)$, where $a(t) = e^{Ht}$ is the scale factor and $d$ the coordinate separation. The exponential factor, whose argument is the ratio of the proper distance to the Hubble radius, is what suppresses entanglement for distant or fast oscillators. The late-time concurrence follows from a Gamma-function integral, $\Gamma(-1 + 2i\Omega/H)$, produced by the change of variable $u = |x_{0i}| d H e^{Ht'}$ in the time integral for the excitation amplitude.

What would settle it

Compute the integral in Eq. (36) numerically with a finite lower cutoff $t_0$ (as the finite duration of the de Sitter phase requires) and check whether it approaches the continued Gamma-function expression as $t_0 \to -\infty$; if the finite-time result differs materially from Eq. (38), the asymptotic claim fails. Alternatively, re-derive the interaction Hamiltonian retaining the $\hat{T}_{00}\hat{T}_{11}$ terms to see whether the exponential damping factor in Eq. (30) survives a more complete non-relativistic reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in de Sitter spacetime, two identical harmonic oscillators interacting through a massless scalar field acquire a late-time concurrence that is non-zero and significant for $\Omega \sim H$ and $dH \ll 1$, and negligible for $\Omega \gg H$ or $dH \gg 1$. The asymptotic concurrence is given by $C_\infty = \frac{|x_{0i}|}{\Omega (Hd)^2} \left[ \frac{2\pi H/\Omega}{\sinh(2\pi \Omega/H)} \left(1 + \frac{4\Omega^2}{H^2}\right) \right]^{1/2}$, where $H$ is the de Sitter expansion rate, $\Omega$ the oscillator frequency, $d$ the coordinate separation, and $x_{0i}$ a constant root of $x^2 = -(\sqrt{3}-1)/2$ on the positive imaginary axis. The same evolution holds for graviton exchange with the coupling constant shifted by Newton's constant, so the result also bears on probing the quantum nature of gravity in a cosmological setting.

Load-bearing premise

The late-time concurrence is obtained by analytically continuing an integral that diverges as the lower time limit goes to minus infinity; if that analytic continuation is not valid, the asymptotic concurrence formula is not defined.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For oscillators with $\Omega \sim H$ and $d \lesssim H^{-1}$, the late-time concurrence is non-negligible; for $\Omega \gg H$ it decays roughly as $\sqrt{H/\Omega}\, e^{-\pi\Omega/H}$, and for $d \gg H^{-1}$ it decays as $(dH)^{-2}$.
  • In the flat-space limit $H \to 0$, the concurrence reduces to $\approx (2mG_\phi/\Omega d^3)\,\sin(\Omega t/2)$, matching earlier results for scalar-mediated entanglement.
  • Because the de Sitter phase of the actual universe has finite duration, the exact late-time result involves an incomplete Gamma function; the closed form of Eq. (38) is the infinite-duration limit.
  • Graviton exchange between the oscillators leads to the same concurrence evolution, with the coupling $G_\phi$ replaced by $G_\phi + G_N$.
  • High-frequency modes of cosmological perturbations, such as those observed in the cosmic microwave background, would have effectively undetectable entanglement, while low-frequency sub-horizon modes might retain significant entanglement.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The exponential damping factor in the interaction Hamiltonian suggests that any cosmological background with a scale factor growing faster than de Sitter would suppress late-time entanglement even more strongly; a direct extension would be to repeat the computation for power-law or other inflationary geometries.
  • The analytic continuation of the divergent late-time integral to $\Gamma(-1 + 2i\Omega/H)$ is the most fragile step; a numerical evaluation of Eq. (36) with a finite lower cutoff, as the authors themselves note is realistic, would reveal whether the asymptotic formula is robust or an artefact of continuation.
  • The treatment neglects back-reaction of the oscillators on the scalar-field mode functions; including this could modify the effective Hamiltonian at late times and hence the entanglement saturation value.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies two identical harmonic oscillators, separated by a fixed coordinate distance d in a de Sitter background, interacting through a massless scalar field. After expressing the scalar field in conformal coordinates and using second-order perturbation theory to integrate out the scalar, the authors obtain a time-dependent interaction Hamiltonian H_AB (Eq. (30)) that decays exponentially in proper distance. They then compute the concurrence of the two-oscillator state, evaluate its late-time limit in Eq. (38), and conclude that entanglement is significant when Ω∼H and d≲H^{-1}, and negligible when Ω≫H or d≫H^{-1}.

Significance. The question addressed is interesting and timely: extending entanglement-based tests of quantum interactions to expanding spacetimes could provide a new observational window. The paper's compact analytic framework and the explicit flat-space consistency check (H→0) are assets. If Eq. (38) were rigorously established, the predicted scaling C∞∼(Ω/H)^{-2} for Ω≪H and exponential suppression for Ω≫H would be a concrete falsifiable target. However, the central derivation is not currently sound: the late-time integral is divergent and its value is assigned by analytic continuation, the contour choice in Sec. III builds in the decaying behavior that is later used as the main physical conclusion, and the reduced Hamiltonian in Eq. (24) relies on instantaneous energy denominators without a controlled adiabatic or in-in justification. These are not presentation issues; they concern the existence and meaning of the central result.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.A, Eqs. (36)-(38)] The integral in Eq. (36) diverges at the lower limit t'→-∞: with u=|x0i|dH e^{Ht'}, the leading integrand behaves as u^{-2+2iΩ/H} e^{-u} near u=0, and ∫_0^∞ u^{-2+2iΩ/H} e^{-u} du does not converge. Replacing it by Γ(-1+2iΩ/H) is an analytic continuation, not an evaluation. A finite lower cutoff changes the value and the result is cutoff-dependent as the cutoff is removed, so the asymptotic concurrence in Eq. (38) is not defined by the derivation. The remark that the de Sitter phase is finite does not fix this; the finite-time incomplete Gamma function is plotted but never shown to approach Eq. (38) in a controlled limit.
  2. [Sec. III, after Eq. (28)] The real-axis poles are excluded because an oscillatory Hamiltonian 'does not make sense physically', and the contour is chosen to yield exponential decay. This is close to assuming the main qualitative conclusion (that the interaction decays with growing proper distance) before deriving it. The contour prescription should be derived from a definite propagator choice in the field-theoretic reduction, or the final result should be shown to be independent of the prescription; otherwise the exponential factor in Eq. (30) is partly put in by hand.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (24)] The reduction to the two-oscillator Hamiltonian uses second-order perturbation theory with instantaneous energy denominators E0-Ek for a time-dependent background. Since the scalar field Hamiltonian and its eigenstates depend on η, and H_int(η) does not define a stationary transition between field eigenstates, Eq. (24) needs an explicit justification (e.g., slow variation of the background, or an in-in/Schrödinger-picture derivation). Without this, the derivation of Eqs. (27)-(30) is not self-contained.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The two oscillators are both written at -d/2; the second position should be +d/2.
  2. [Sec. III, before Eq. (15)] The word 'Besel' should be 'Bessel' in the sentence introducing the mode functions.
  3. [Eq. (32)] The final state is written with C00=1, but the perturbation also generates a correction to the |00⟩ amplitude; the normalization should be carried consistently or this approximation should be stated explicitly.
  4. [Figs. 1-3] The vertical axes are not labeled in the figures; the captions should define the rescaled concurrence and its asymptotic value.
  5. [Abstract] The abstract contains a grammatical error ('with their frequencies are comparable'); it should read 'with their frequencies comparable to'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the concurrence is derived from a first-principles interaction Hamiltonian and first-order perturbation theory, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The scalar field is quantized on de Sitter with the Bunch-Davies vacuum (Eqs. 12-15); the matter-field interaction is introduced through the standard A_int = ∫ d^4x √(-g) φ T^μν g_μν (Eq. 19), citing the authors' earlier [35] but not relying on any unverified uniqueness claim; the effective two-oscillator Hamiltonian is computed in Eqs. (24)-(30) within the paper. The retarded-contour choice at Eqs. (28)-(30) is a physical boundary condition (causal decay with proper distance), not a parameter fitted to the desired answer; it does not by construction determine the frequency dependence, the (dH)^{-2} prefactor, or the significant-entanglement region Ω∼H, d≲H^{-1}, which emerge from the Gamma-function expression in Eqs. (36)-(38). The time-dependent perturbation theory and concurrence measure are standard and applied, not tuned. The flat-spacetime limit is checked against [35], which is consistency, not input. The two flagged concerns are not circularity: (i) the physically motivated contour choice imports an expectation of decay, but that is a standard causal prescription, and (ii) the asymptotic integral in Eq. (36) diverges at t'→-∞ and Eq. (37) uses Γ(-1+2iΩ/H) as an analytic continuation; this is an unstated regularization/rigor gap, not a reduction of the prediction to its inputs. The paper itself notes the finite dS phase means the lower limit should be finite, and only plots incomplete-Gamma behavior without proving convergence to Eq. (38); that weakens support but does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on no fitted constants: m, Omega, d, H and G are physical inputs. The derivation relies on a chain of modeling assumptions: point-like oscillators, massless scalar with Bunch-Davies vacuum, non-relativistic T00-only truncation, and two regularization choices (retarded contour and analytic continuation of a divergent integral). The last two are the most fragile; they substantially determine the exponential decay and the finite asymptotic concurrence.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The two oscillators are point-like, with energy-momentum tensor given by Eq. (21): T_hat_mu_nu = p_hat_mu p_hat_nu / (sqrt(-g) p0) times [delta^3(x-xA) + delta^3(x-xB)].
    This models the oscillators as two delta-function masses; it is assumed without derivation and underlies all interaction matrix elements.
  • domain assumption The scalar field is massless and initially in the Bunch-Davies vacuum, with mode functions Eq. (15).
    Standard cosmological vacuum choice; needed to fix the mode functions and the free-field Hamiltonian.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar-mediated interaction between the oscillators can be obtained from instantaneous second-order perturbation theory, Eq. (24), even though H_int is time-dependent.
    This is not justified; energy denominators E0 - Ek are ill-defined for a time-dependent Hamiltonian.
  • ad hoc to paper The pole prescription in Eq. (28) is the retarded one, dropping the real-axis poles to avoid an oscillatory Hamiltonian.
    The choice is motivated by the expectation that the interaction should decay as the proper distance grows, which anticipates the main conclusion.
  • ad hoc to paper The divergent late-time integral Eq. (36) is assigned the value Gamma(-1 + 2 i Omega / H) by analytic continuation.
    The integral diverges at the lower limit (u goes to 0); no physical regularization or causality argument is given.
  • domain assumption Only the T00 T00 component is kept in the non-relativistic limit; T01 and T11 contributions are dropped.
    Standard Newtonian approximation, though in de Sitter the dropped terms are not quantified.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Manifestation of quantum entanglement between harmonic oscillators in de Sitter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7IZKJNKV

@misc{pith2026250611422,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Manifestation of quantum entanglement between harmonic oscillators in de Sitter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7IZKJNKV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.11422}
}
read the original abstract

Two harmonic oscillators interacting through the exchange of a quantum field leads to non-zero entanglement between the two, which is absent for classical interaction. In this work, we determine the entanglement between two such harmonic oscillators living in an expanding universe. It turns out that, if the oscillators are within the Hubble horizon, with their frequencies are comparable to the rate of expansion of the universe, the entanglement is non-zero and significant. While, for oscillators outside the Hubble horizon, with oscillation frequencies much higher than the expansion rate, the entanglement is negligibly small.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.11422 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Variation of the rescaled concurrence [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Evolution of the concurrence with time has been presented for three different choices of the dimensionless coordinate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The asymptotic value of concurrence has been plotted [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Physics Letters, Section A: General, Atomic and Solid State Physics 223 (1996), 10.1016/S0375-9601(96)00706-2

    doi:10.1016/s0375-9601(96)00706-2 1996

  2. [2]

    Calabrese and J

    P. Calabrese and J. Cardy, Journal of Statistical Me- chanics: Theory and Experiment (2004), 10.1088/1742- 5468/2004/06/P06002

    doi:10.1088/1742- 2004

  3. [3]

    Casini and M

    H. Casini and M. Huerta, J. Phys. A42, 504007 (2009), arXiv:0905.2562 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    M. A. Metlitski, C. A. Fuertes, and S. Sachdev, Phys. Rev. B80, 115122 (2009), arXiv:0904.4477 [cond- mat.stat-mech]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  5. [5]

    M. P. Hertzberg, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 46, 015402 (2013)

    work page 2013

  6. [6]

    S. Seki, I. Y. Park, and S. J. Sin, Physics Letters, Sec- tion B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics 743 (2015), 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.02.028

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.02.028 2015

  7. [7]

    Witten, Rev

    E. Witten, Rev. Mod. Phys. 90, 045003 (2018), arXiv:1803.04993 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    Casini and M

    H. Casini and M. Huerta, PoST ASI2021, 002 (2023), arXiv:2201.13310 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 66 references
  1. [10]

    Hollands and K

    S. Hollands and K. Sanders, (2017), arXiv:1702.04924 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  2. [11]

    S.FedidaandA.Serafini,PhysicalReviewD 107,116007 (2023)

    2023

  3. [12]

    Fedida, A

    S. Fedida, A. Mazumdar, S. Bose, and A. Serafini, Phys. Rev. D 109, 065028 (2024), arXiv:2401.10332 [hep-th]

    2024

  4. [13]

    Casini, M

    H. Casini, M. Huerta, and R. C. Myers, JHEP05, 036 (2011), arXiv:1102.0440 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Rangamani and T

    M. Rangamani and T. Takayanagi, Holographic Entanglement Entropy , Vol. 931 (Springer, 2017) arXiv:1609.01287 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [15]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D23, 287 (1981)

    1981

  7. [16]

    Bombelli, R

    L. Bombelli, R. K. Koul, J. Lee, and R. D. Sorkin, Phys. Rev. D 34, 373 (1986)

    1986

  8. [17]

    Srednicki, Phys

    M. Srednicki, Phys. Rev. Lett.71, 666 (1993), arXiv:hep- th/9303048

    1993

  9. [18]

    ’t Hooft, Conf

    G. ’t Hooft, Conf. Proc. C930308, 284 (1993), arXiv:gr- qc/9310026

    1993

  10. [19]

    Balasubramanian, M

    V. Balasubramanian, M. B. McDermott, and M. Van Raamsdonk, Phys. Rev. D 86, 045014 (2012), arXiv:1108.3568 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  11. [20]

    Peschanski and S

    R. Peschanski and S. Seki, Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics 758 (2016), 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.063

    2016 doi

  12. [21]

    Peschanski and S

    R. Peschanski and S. Seki, Physical Review D 100, 076012 (2019)

    2019

  13. [22]

    A. Bose, P. Haldar, A. Sinha, P. Sinha, and S. Tiwari, SciPost Physics 9, 081 (2020)

    2020

  14. [23]

    Landry and J

    R. Landry and J. Moffat, (2024), arXiv:2309.06576 [hep- th]

    2024 arXiv

  15. [24]

    U. K. B. Vinckers, A. de la Cruz-Dombriz, and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. D 107, 124036 (2023), arXiv:2303.17640 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [25]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroš, M. Paternostro, A. Geraci, P. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 240401 (2017), arXiv:1707.06050 [quant-ph]

    2017 arXiv

  17. [26]

    Bose, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 0Fv-0k13s_k (2016), accessed 1/11/22

    S. Bose, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= 0Fv-0k13s_k (2016), accessed 1/11/22

    2016

  18. [27]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240402 (2017)

    2017

  19. [28]

    R. J. Marshman, A. Mazumdar, and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. A 101, 052110 (2020), arXiv:1907.01568 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Carney, P

    D. Carney, P. C. E. Stamp, and J. M. Taylor, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 034001 (2019)

    2019

  21. [30]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, M. Schut, and M. Toroš, Phys. Rev. D 105, 106028 (2022), arXiv:2201.03583 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Biswas, S

    D. Biswas, S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, and M. Toroš, Phys. Rev. D 108, 064023 (2023), arXiv:2209.09273 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [32]

    Carney, Phys

    D. Carney, Phys. Rev. D 105, 024029 (2022), arXiv:2108.06320 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  24. [33]

    S. G. Elahi and A. Mazumdar, Phys. Rev. D108, 035018 (2023), arXiv:2303.07371 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [34]

    Hanif, D

    F. Hanif, D. Das, J. Halliwell, D. Home, A. Mazumdar, H. Ulbricht, and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 180201 (2024), arXiv:2307.08133 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [35]

    Chakraborty, A

    S. Chakraborty, A. Mazumdar, and R. Pradhan, Phys. Rev. D 108, L121505 (2023), arXiv:2310.06899 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [36]

    D. L. Danielson, G. Satishchandran, and R. M. Wald, Physical Review D105, 086001 (2022)

    2022

  28. [37]

    J. J. Halliwell, Phys. Lett. B196, 444 (1987)

    1987

  29. [38]

    R. H. Brandenberger, R. Laflamme, and M. Mijic, Mod. Phys. Lett. A5, 2311 (1990). 9

    1990

  30. [39]

    Albrecht, P

    A. Albrecht, P. Ferreira, M. Joyce, and T. Prokopec, Phys. Rev. D50, 4807 (1994), arXiv:astro-ph/9303001

    1994 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Polarski and A

    D. Polarski and A. A. Starobinsky, Class. Quant. Grav. 13, 377 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9504030

    1996 arXiv

  32. [41]

    Calzetta and B

    E. Calzetta and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. D52, 6770 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9505046

    1995 arXiv

  33. [42]

    Lesgourgues, D

    J. Lesgourgues, D. Polarski, and A. Starobinsky, Nuclear Physics B 497, 479–508 (1997)

    1997

  34. [43]

    Kiefer, D

    C. Kiefer, D. Polarski, and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D7, 455 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9802003

    1998 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Nambu, Physics Letters B276, 11 (1992)

    Y. Nambu, Physics Letters B276, 11 (1992)

    1992

  36. [45]

    Barvinsky, A

    A. Barvinsky, A. Kamenshchik, C. Kiefer, and I. Mishakov, Nuclear Physics B551, 374 (1999)

    1999

  37. [46]

    Kiefer, I

    C. Kiefer, I. Lohmar, D. Polarski, and A. A. Starobin- sky, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 1699 (2007), arXiv:astro- ph/0610700

    2007

  38. [47]

    Martineau, Class

    P. Martineau, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 5817 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0601134

    2007 arXiv

  39. [48]

    Martin, V

    J. Martin, V. Vennin, and P. Peter, Phys. Rev. D86, 103524 (2012), arXiv:1207.2086 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  40. [49]

    Martin and V

    J. Martin and V. Vennin, JCAP 05, 063 (2018), arXiv:1801.09949 [astro-ph.CO]

    2018 arXiv

  41. [50]

    Martin, A

    J. Martin, A. Micheli, and V. Vennin, JCAP 04, 051 (2022), arXiv:2112.05037 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  42. [51]

    Burgess, T

    C. Burgess, T. Colas, R. Holman, G. Kaplanek, and V. Vennin, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2024, 042 (2024)

    2024

  43. [52]

    C. P. Burgess, T. Colas, R. Holman, and G. Ka- planek, Journal of High Energy Physics 2025 (2025), 10.1007/jhep02(2025)204

    2025 doi

  44. [53]

    C. P. Burgess, R. Holman, and D. Hoover, Phys. Rev. D 77, 063534 (2008)

    2008

  45. [54]

    Weenink and T

    J. Weenink and T. Prokopec, (2011), arXiv:1108.3994 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  46. [55]

    Colas, J

    T. Colas, J. Grain, and V. Vennin, Europhysics Letters 142, 69002 (2023)

    2023

  47. [56]

    Brahma, O

    S. Brahma, O. Alaryani, and R. Brandenberger, Phys. Rev. D 102, 043529 (2020), arXiv:2005.09688 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  48. [57]

    Quantum signatures and de- coherence during inflation from deep subhorizon pertur- bations,

    F. Lopez and N. Bartolo, “Quantum signatures and de- coherence during inflation from deep subhorizon pertur- bations,” (2025), arXiv:2503.23150 [astro-ph.CO]

    2025 arXiv

  49. [58]

    False and genuine decoherence in the early universe: a local observer and time-averaged observables,

    F. Sano and J. Tokuda, “False and genuine decoherence in the early universe: a local observer and time-averaged observables,” (2025), arXiv:2504.10472 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  50. [59]

    R. N. Raveendran and S. Chakraborty, Gen. Rel. Grav. 56, 55 (2024), arXiv:2302.02584 [astro-ph.CO]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Rajeev, S

    K. Rajeev, S. Chakraborty, and T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rev. D 100, 045019 (2019), arXiv:1904.03207 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Rajeev, S

    K. Rajeev, S. Chakraborty, and T. Padmanabhan, Gen. Rel. Grav. 50, 116 (2018), arXiv:1712.06617 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  53. [62]

    Rajeev, S

    K. Rajeev, S. Chakraborty, and T. Padmanabhan, Eur. Phys. J. C78, 836 (2018), arXiv:1712.06621 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  54. [63]

    W. K. Wootters, Physical Review Letters 80 (1998), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.2245

    1998 doi

  55. [64]

    Hill and W

    S. Hill and W. K. Wootters, Physical Review Letters78 (1997), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5022

    1997 doi

  56. [65]

    Rungta, V

    P. Rungta, V. Bužek, C. M. Caves, M. Hillery, and G. J. Milburn, Physical Review A 64 (2001), 10.1103/phys- reva.64.042315

    2001 doi

  57. [66]

    Mukhanov, H

    V. Mukhanov, H. Feldman, and R. Brandenberger, Physics Reports 215, 203 (1992)

    1992

  58. [67]

    Ashoorioon, P

    A. Ashoorioon, P. S. Bhupal Dev, and A. Mazumdar, Mod. Phys. Lett. A29, 1450163 (2014), arXiv:1211.4678 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.