Enhanced quantum sensing of gravitational acceleration constant

Giorgio Stucchi; Matteo G. A. Paris

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Enhanced quantum sensing of gravitational acceleration constant

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 This paper establishes that a free-falling quantum probe prepared in a spatial superposition of two Gaussian wave packets measures the gravitational acceleration $g$ more precisely than a localized probe, with the quantum Fisher…

desk verdict The master formula is likely right, but the printed special-case limits contradict it, and the paper's 'always better' conclusion does not survive the correct reduction. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.20352 v2 pith:ZQHZGBJY submitted 2025-06-25 quant-ph

Giorgio Stucchi , Matteo G. A. Paris This is my paper

classification quant-ph MSC 81P5081P1581P16 PACS 04.80.Cc03.65.Ta06.20.-f

keywords quantummetrologygravitationalaccelerationFisherinformationspatialsuperpositionGaussianwavepacketspositionmeasurementfreefalljointestimation

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 authors ask whether quantum delocalization helps measure Earth's gravitational acceleration. They compute the quantum Fisher information for a free-falling Gaussian wave packet and for a superposition of two such packets, finding that the superposition generically outperforms the localized one: the precision enhancement scales quadratically with the separation between the two wavefunction components. They then show that realistic position measurements retain most of this advantage, that the Earth's surface can be neglected until just before impact, and that estimating $g$ together with the probe mass $m$ introduces negligible extra noise despite the two parameters being fundamentally incompatible. If correct, this provides a concrete principle for quantum gravimetry: prepare delocalized coherent superpositions rather than localized states.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the quantum Fisher information computed via the symmetric logarithmic derivative (SLD) for pure states under unitary encoding, using the operator $G=i(\partial_g U^\dagger)U$ whose variance on the initial state gives $H(g)=4\mathrm{Var}(G)$. For the free-fall Hamiltonian $H=p^2/2m+mgx$, the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula yields $G=-(mtx+t^2 p/2)$, so the QFI reduces to $4m^2t^2$ times the position variance of the evolved state. The superposition state of two Gaussians with opposite momenta is the key probe, and its $a^2$-dependent variance produces the precision enhancement.

What would settle it

A direct test would be a free-fall experiment with a mesoscopic superposition (e.g., a trapped atom or molecule in a superposition of two heights) measuring position after a fixed time $t$; if the Fisher information of the position distribution does not grow as $a^2$ relative to a localized probe, or if the advantage disappears when decoherence is deliberately introduced, the central claim would be falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For a probe initially in a superposition of two Gaussian wave packets separated by $2a$, the QFI for estimating $g$ is $H_{\rm sup}=H_{\rm loc}+8m^2\sigma^2 t^2[a^2/(2\sigma^2)-f]+4amp_0 t^3+\frac{t^4}{2\sigma^2}[2\sigma^2 p_0^2-f]$ with $f=g(a,\sigma,p_0)$; in the zero-momentum limit this reduces to $H_{\rm sup}=H_{\rm loc}+2a^2m^2t^2[1+\tanh(a^2/4\sigma^2)]+\frac{a^2t^4}{8\sigma^2}[1-\tanh(a^2/4\sigma^2)]$. Thus, for sufficiently separated and non-overlapping packets, delocalization strictly increases precision, and the enhancement is quadratic in the separation $a$. The same advantage persists for realistic position measurements, where the Fisher information remains a substantial fraction of the QFI, and the no-floor approximation is numerically validated until just before the particle hits the surface. Joint estimation of $g$ and mass $m$ yields an Uhlmann curvature indicating incompatibility, but the resulting excess noise $R$ and $T(W)$ are numerically negligible ($<10^{-40}$) for realistic parameters.

Load-bearing premise

The entire QFI calculation assumes the spatial superposition remains perfectly coherent during free fall, with no environmental decoherence such as collisions or photon scattering; any such noise would turn the pure state into a mixture and could dilute or destroy the quadratic-in-$a$ advantage.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Preparing a spatial superposition with larger separation $a$ improves the ultimate precision limit for measuring $g$ quadratically, provided the wave packets remain distinct ($a^2>2\sigma^2\mu$).
Position measurements, which are experimentally realistic, capture a significant fraction of the quantum bound, so no exotic measurement is needed to benefit from delocalization.
The influence of Earth's surface is negligible until shortly before impact, justifying the use of the simpler free-fall model for most of the trajectory.
Estimating $g$ and the probe mass $m$ simultaneously introduces only negligible excess noise, so $m$ can be treated as a nuisance parameter without degrading precision.
The optimal wave-packet width for large-time QFI enhancement occurs at a specific ratio $a^2/\sigma^2\simeq 4\xi$ with $\xi\simeq 0.64$, guiding state engineering.

Reading between the lines

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

A natural extension is to include decoherence: if collisional or photon-scattering noise reduces the superposition to a mixture, the $a^2$ advantage will likely degrade, so the paper's result should be read as an idealized coherent limit rather than a noise-robust claim.
The same ratio-symmetric structure suggests that superposition probes could enhance sensing of other linear potentials (e.g., electric fields on charged particles), where the effective coupling is analogous to $mgx$.
A testable prediction is that the position-measurement Fisher information ratio $\gamma_S=F_{x,\rm sup}/F_{x,\rm loc}$ should grow approximately as $a^2$ for small $a$, which could be verified in atom interferometry or neutron free-fall experiments.
The negligible incompatibility between $g$ and $m$ might extend to other pairs of parameters with similar linear-coupling structure, though the proof here is specific to the Gaussian free-fall model.

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

Quick take: the paper is a mix of solid QFI machinery and a load-bearing arithmetic error. The explicit formula for the QFI of a Gaussian superposition in free fall, Eq. (41), checks out—we reproduced it via H=4Var(G). The position-measurement FI and the bouncer comparison are useful contributions. But the special-case limits printed as Eqs. (42) and (43) are wrong: Eq. (43) has a t^4 term with the wrong sign and wrong dimension, and Eq. (42) is off by a factor of 16 in the t^2 term. The correct p0=0 reduction of Eq. (41) reads Hsup = Hloc + 2a^2m^2t^2(1+tanh(a^2/4σ^2)) − a^2t^4/(8σ^4)(1−tanh(a^2/2σ^2)). The negative t^4 term means the superposition stops beating the localized probe at sufficiently late times, so the sentence after Eq. (43) claiming 'always provides enhanced precision' is false, and the large-time optimization based on the printed plus sign is meaningless. That is not a cosmetic typo: it overthrows a stated conclusion.

The joint-estimation section says 'proving' but actually evaluates R and T(W) at one physical parameter set and concludes <10^-40. That's an example, not a proof. The bouncer numerics similarly lack convergence data; Fig. 1 is asserted but no truncation error or number of Airy states is given. Minor: the Newtonian potential is written as −GMm/(R+x)^2, should be −GMm/(R+x). And the whole analysis assumes perfect coherence; decoherence is never modeled, so the practical reach of the quadratic gain is bounded by an unstated assumption.

Credit where due: the derivation of Eq. (41) is transparent and internally consistent, the position FI for the localized probe Eq. (45) is correct, and the no-floor comparison is a sensible sanity check. The citation pattern looks appropriate.

I'd send this to a serious referee, because the underlying approach is sound and the master formula appears correct, but the paper needs major revision: fix the special-case reductions, re-derive the large-time behavior, and tone down the 'proof' language. As it stands, the advertised quantitative claim is not reliable. For a reading group it would be a good case study in checking limits, but I wouldn't cite it in its current form.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes quantum limits to estimating the gravitational acceleration g with free-falling quantum probes. It derives the Quantum Fisher Information (QFI) for a localized Gaussian state and for a superposition of two Gaussian wave packets, claiming a precision enhancement that scales quadratically with the separation. It also compares free-fall with a quantum bouncer model, studies position measurements, and treats the joint estimation of g and the probe mass m, concluding that the incompatibility of the two parameters introduces negligible excess noise.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper identifies a useful resource for quantum gravimetry: delocalized coherent probes can outperform localized ones, and position measurements capture a meaningful fraction of the ultimate quantum limit. The analytic derivation is self-contained and does not rely on fitted parameters; the use of G=i(∂_g U^†)U and the relation H=4Var(G) are standard and clearly presented. The main idea is interesting and likely correct in its qualitative form, but several printed special-case formulas and numerical validations need correction.

major comments (4)

[Section IV, Eq. (43)] The stated p0=0 limit of Eq. (41) is algebraically incorrect. Setting p0=0 in Eq. (41) and writing x=a^2/(4σ^2) yields Hsup−Hloc = 2a²m²t²(1+tanh x) − [a²t⁴/(8σ⁴)](1−tanh x), whereas Eq. (43) has a plus sign and σ² in the denominator of the t⁴ term. The printed t⁴ term has the wrong sign and the wrong dimension: with ℏ=c=1 the QFI has dimension E⁻², while a²t⁴/σ² has dimension E⁻⁴. This is not a cosmetic typo: the sentence immediately after Eq. (43) claiming that the delocalized probe 'always provides enhanced precision', and the subsequent optimization of the t⁴ term, both rely on the incorrect sign. The corrected expression is negative for sufficiently large t, so the 'always' claim must be revisited.
[Section IV, Eq. (42)] The a=0 limit of Eq. (41) is also incorrect. Direct reduction of Eq. (41) gives Hsup−Hloc = (1/2)p0²t⁴(1+tanh(σ²p0²)) − 8 m²σ⁴ p0² t² (1−tanh(σ²p0²)), but Eq. (42) has coefficient 1/2 rather than 8 in the t² term. The two special-case formulas therefore do not follow from the master formula, and readers cannot use them as printed.
[Section V] The numerical comparison with the quantum bouncer does not demonstrate the physical no-floor claim for Earth's field. The text says the truncation to about 100 coefficients is adequate when k=(2m²g)^(1/3) is of order one, but for the stated natural-unit values (m=0.1, h=10, σ=1) and Earth's g≈2.15×10⁻³² GeV (the value used in Section VII), k is roughly 10⁻¹¹, not of order one, and over t≤4 the free-fall displacement (1/2)gt² is completely negligible, so no floor effect would be visible. If the figures instead use g=1 in dimensionless units, this must be stated explicitly, and the convergence in the number of Airy eigenstates should be quantified. The text also cites Eq. (36) where the eigenfunction expansion is actually in Eq. (33).
[Section VII] The abstract and Section VIII state that the joint estimation of g and m introduces 'negligible' excess noise as a proof, but the evidence is a numerical evaluation for a single parameter set (g≈2.15×10⁻³² GeV, m≈9.31 GeV, σ≈5.1×10⁻⁶ GeV⁻¹). Equations (49) and (50) are evaluated, not proven, for that set. A parametric bound or a scaling argument is needed to support the universal wording; otherwise the claim should be qualified as a numerical demonstration for typical parameters.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract and Introduction] There are grammatical errors and typos, for example 'proving that the no excess estimation noise is arising' and 'avalaible' and 'spealing'. A careful language edit is needed.
[Section V, Fig. 1] The caption and text should specify the value of g used in the simulations and state whether the figures use natural units with Earth's g or a dimensionless g=1. The current text is ambiguous.
[Equation (44)] The evolved Gaussian wavefunction in Eq. (44) is not used after Eq. (45); consider clarifying whether it is needed only for deriving the position Fisher information or for subsequent numerics.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found; the central QFI derivation is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Section IV starts from the Hamiltonian H=p^2/2m+mgx, the exact propagator Eq. (23), and the assumed initial states Eq. (36)/(39). The QFI is obtained through standard estimation-theory formulas, Eqs. (4), (6) and (7), which are standard textbook machinery, and by evaluating the variance of G on the initial state. No parameter is fitted to data, and no 'prediction' reuses a fitted value: the delocalized enhancement is presented as an explicit function of physical parameters (m, sigma, a, p0, t). The no-floor validation in Sec. V compares a numerical expansion to the analytic free-fall result rather than fitting to it. The joint-estimation section uses standard multiparameter bounds; Ref. [53] is cited for general formulas, not for the paper's conclusion. Self-citations (Paris 2009, Seveso et al., He & Paris, Razavian et al.) occur in reviews or as related prior applications; none is load-bearing for the quadratic-in-a enhancement. The numerical example in Sec. VII uses hand-picked physical values rather than values fit to the target conclusion. Thus no step reduces to its own input by construction. Note that Eq. (43) appears internally inconsistent with Eq. (41) regarding the sign and dimension of the t^4 term, but this is an algebraic/correctness concern, not circularity, and it does not change the circularity verdict.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No physical constants are fitted to data; all analytic results are functions of probe parameters. The main domain assumptions are coherent free evolution and the infinite-wall model of the floor. The numerical bouncer comparison additionally assumes a 100-term truncation is enough, and the joint-estimation example uses hand-picked physical values.

free parameters (2)

Number of Airy eigenstates retained in bouncer expansion = about 100
Section V states this truncation is used to contain computational load; no convergence study is provided, so the numerical validation of the no-floor approximation depends on this hand-chosen cutoff.
Example probe parameters in joint estimation (g, m, sigma) = g=2.15e-32 GeV, m=9.31 GeV, sigma=5.1e-6 GeV^-1
Hand-chosen 'sensible' values in Section VII; the claim that incompatibility noise is negligible is demonstrated only for this set, not proven generally.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The quantum probe evolves unitarily under H=p^2/2m+mgx with no decoherence or loss.
Used throughout Sections IV-VI; the QFI for pure states in Eq. (6) assumes coherent unitary encoding.
domain assumption Gaussian initial states are exactly normalized and, for the bouncer, approximately normalized on the half-line when h>>sigma.
Assumed in Eqs. (36) and (39) and in Section V; the approximation is needed for the bouncer comparison.
ad hoc to paper The Airy eigenfunction expansion truncated to about 100 terms is sufficient for the bouncer dynamics.
Section V states this to contain computational load; no convergence study is provided.
domain assumption The Earth's surface acts as an infinite hard wall at x=0.
Section III.B, potential in Eq. (24), models the floor as an impenetrable barrier.
standard math The quantum Cramer-Rao bound and SLD formalism are valid for the stated pure-state families.
Section II reviews and applies the standard quantum estimation theory framework.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Enhanced quantum sensing of gravitational acceleration constant." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZQHZGBJY

@misc{pith2026250620352,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Enhanced quantum sensing of gravitational acceleration constant},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZQHZGBJY}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.20352}
}

abstract

We investigate the use of quantum probes to accurately determine the strength of the local gravitational field on Earth. Our findings show that delocalized probes generally outperform localized ones, with the precision enhancement scaling quadratically with the separation between the two wavefunction components. This advantage persists under realistic position measurements, which can achieve precision not too far from the ultimate bound. We also discuss the influence of Earth's surface, demonstrating that its effect can be neglected until shortly before the particle hits the floor. Finally, we address the joint estimation of the gravitational acceleration $g$ and the probe mass $m$, proving that the excess estimation noise arising from their inherent incompatibility is negligible.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.20352 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** QFI H(g) for the estimation of g by a quantum bouncer (red points) compared to the same quantity obtained with a free falling probe (black solid lines) for different values of the involved parameters. The green line denotes the t 2 term of the no-floor QFI. The yellow columns provide a visual aid to discern the end of the range of validity of the no-floor approximation. We notice that the dependence on the parameter… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** (Left): the ratio γS between the FI of position measurement for probes prepared in a superposition state and that obtained for localized probes, as function of the separation a and for different values of the wavepackets width σ. From top to bottom: σ = 0.2, 0.25, 0.3, 0.35, 0.4, 0.5. (Right): the ratio γH between the FI of position measurement for probes prepared in a superposition state and the corresponding QFI, … view at source ↗

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

Towards gravimetry enhancement with squeezed states
quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Tilted (position-momentum correlated) squeezed vacuum probes give a quantum Fisher information advantage over vacuum probes for estimating gravitational acceleration at all interaction times, unlike canonical quadratu...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

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

[1]

G. Amelino-Camelia, The three perspectives on the quantum-gravity problem and their implications for the fate of lorentz symmetry, inThe Tenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting: On Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation and Relativistic Field Theories (In 3 Volumes)(World Scientific, 2005) pp. 2214–2216

work page 2005
[2]

Weinstein and D

S. Weinstein and D. Rickles, Quantum Gravity, inThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2024) Spring 2024 ed. 16

work page 2024
[3]

Ciufolini, A

I. Ciufolini, A. Paolozzi, E. C. Pavlis, R. Koenig, J. Ries, V. Gurzadyan, R. Matzner, R. Penrose, G. Sindoni, C. Paris,et al., A test of general relativity using the lares and lageos satellites and a grace earth gravity model: Measurement of earth’s dragging of inertial frames, The European Physical Journal C76, 1 (2016)

work page 2016
[4]

M. Zych, L. Rudnicki, and I. Pikovski, Gravitational mass of composite systems, Phys. Rev. D99, 104029 (2019)

work page 2019
[5]

Moustos and C

D. Moustos and C. Anastopoulos, Gravity-mediated decoherence, Phys. Rev. D110, 024022 (2024)

work page 2024
[6]

R. Y. Chiao, N. A. Inan, M. Scheibner, J. Sharping, D. A. Singleton, and M. E. Tobar, Gravitational aharonov-bohm effect, Phys. Rev. D109, 064073 (2024)

work page 2024
[7]

Carlesso, A

M. Carlesso, A. Bassi,et al., Observable quantum entanglement due to gravity, npj Quantum Informa- tion6, 20 (2020), arXiv:1907.11696 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2020
[8]

On Diameter Approximation in Directed Graphs

T. Biswas, K. Lochan, and A. Raj, Inference of gravitational field superposition from quantum mea- surements, Physical Review D108, 084038 (2023), arXiv:2307.07583 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 53 references

[9]

J. Chen, Z. Wang,et al., Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing, Nature Communications 15, 1794 (2024)

2024
[10]

Colella, A

R. Colella, A. W. Overhauser, and S. A. Werner, Observation of gravitationally induced quantum interference, Physical review letters34, 1472 (1975-6-9)

1975
[11]

Abele, G

H. Abele, G. Cronenberg, P. Geltenbort, T. Jenke, T. Lins, and H. Saul, qbounce, the quantum bounc- ing ball experiment, Physics Procedia17, 4 (2011), 2nd International Workshop on the Physics of fundamental Symmetries and Interactions - PSI2010

2011
[12]

Jenke, J

T. Jenke, J. Bosina, G. Cronenberg, H. Filter, P. Geltenbort, A. N. Ivanov, J. Micko, M. Pitschmann, T. Rechberger, R. I. Sedmik,et al., Testing gravity at short distances: Gravity resonance spectroscopy with qbounce, inEPJ Web of Conferences, Vol. 219 (EDP Sciences, 2019) p. 05003

2019
[13]

Nesvizhevsky, Gravitational quantum states of neutrons and the new granit spectrometer, Modern Physics Letters A27(2012)

V. Nesvizhevsky, Gravitational quantum states of neutrons and the new granit spectrometer, Modern Physics Letters A27(2012)

2012
[14]

Landry and M

A. Landry and M. B. Paranjape, Gravitationally induced quantum transitions, Phys. Rev. D93, 122006 (2016)

2016
[15]

B. Koch, E. Muñoz, and A. Santoni, Ultracold neutrons in the low curvature limit: Remarks on the post-newtonian effects, Phys. Rev. D109, 064085 (2024)

2024
[16]

Ivanov, M

A. Ivanov, M. Wellenzohn, and H. Abele, Quantum gravitational states of ultracold neutrons as a tool for probing of beyond-riemann gravity, Physics Letters B822(2021)

2021
[17]

Escobar, A

C. Escobar, A. Martín-Ruiz, A. Escobar-Ruiz, and R. Linares, Testing the scalar sector of the standard- model extension with neutron gravity experiments, European Physical Journal Plus137, 1 (2022)

2022
[18]

S. Sala, F. Castelli, M. Giammarchi, S. Siccardi, and S. Olivares, Matter-wave interferometry: towards antimatter interferometers, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Optical Physics48, 195002 (2015). 17

2015
[19]

Perez, D

P. Perez, D. Banerjee, F. Biraben, D. Brook-Roberge, M. Charlton, P. Cladé, P. Comini, P. Crivelli, O. Dalkarov, P. Debu,et al., The gbar antimatter gravity experiment, Hyperfine Interactions233, 21 (2015)

2015
[20]

Cronenberg, H

G. Cronenberg, H. Filter, M. Thalhammer, T. Jenke, H. Abele, and P. Geltenbort, A gravity of earth measurement with a qbounce experiment (2015), arXiv:1512.09134 [hep-ex]

2015 arXiv
[21]

Himemoto, A

Y. Himemoto, A. Nishizawa, and A. Taruya, Distinguishing a stochastic gravitational-wave signal from correlated noise with joint parameter estimation: Fisher analysis for ground-based detectors, Phys. Rev. D107, 064055 (2023)

2023
[22]

Peters, K

A. Peters, K. Y. Chung, and S. Chu, High-precision gravity measurements using atom interferometry, Metrologia38, 25 (2001)

2001
[23]

Gea-Banacloche, A quantum bouncing ball, American Journal of Physics67, 776 (1999)

J. Gea-Banacloche, A quantum bouncing ball, American Journal of Physics67, 776 (1999)

1999
[24]

Montenegro, Heisenberg-limited spin-mechanical gravimetry, Phys

V. Montenegro, Heisenberg-limited spin-mechanical gravimetry, Phys. Rev. Res.7, 013016 (2025)

2025
[25]

Kohlrus, D

J. Kohlrus, D. E. Bruschi, and I. Fuentes, Quantum-metrology estimation of spacetime parameters of the earth outperforming classical precision, Phys. Rev. A99, 032350 (2019)

2019
[26]

Cramér,Mathematical methods of statistics, Vol

H. Cramér,Mathematical methods of statistics, Vol. 9 (Princeton University Press, 1945)

1945
[27]

M. G. A. Paris, Quantum estimation for quantum technology, Int. J. Quantum Inf.7, 125 (2009)

2009
[28]

C. W. Helstrom,Quantum detection and estimation theory(Academic Press, 1976)

1976
[29]

A. S. Holevo,Probabilistic and Statistical Aspects of Quantum Theory, 2nd ed. (Edizioni della Normale, Pisa, 2011)

2011
[30]

Liu, X.-X

J. Liu, X.-X. Jing, and X. Wang, Quantum metrology with unitary parametrization processes, Sci. Rep. 5 , 8535 (2015)

2015
[31]

Albarelli, M

F. Albarelli, M. Barbieri, M. Genoni, and I. Gianani, A perspective on multiparameter quantum metrol- ogy: From theoretical tools to applications in quantum imaging, Physics Letters A384(2020)

2020
[32]

J. Liu, H. Yuan, X.-M. Lu, and X. Wang, Quantum fisher information matrix and multiparameter estimation, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical53, 023001 (2020)

2020
[33]

Wadati, The free fall of quantum particles, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan68, 2543 (1999)

M. Wadati, The free fall of quantum particles, Journal of the Physical Society of Japan68, 2543 (1999)

1999
[34]

X. He, R. Yousefjani, and A. Bayat, Stark localization as a resource for weak-field sensing with super- heisenberg precision, Phys. Rev. Lett.131, 010801 (2023)

2023
[35]

Vallée and M

O. Vallée and M. Soares,Airy functions and applications to physics, Vol. 67 (World Scientific, 2004)

2004
[36]

Wheeler, Classical/quantum dynamics in a uniform gravitational field, Nicholas Wheeler’s Physics Lectures are owned by Reed College and archived by the Reed College Li- brary

N. Wheeler, Classical/quantum dynamics in a uniform gravitational field, Nicholas Wheeler’s Physics Lectures are owned by Reed College and archived by the Reed College Li- brary. The original material is copyrighted by Nicholas Wheeler. (https://www.reed.edu /physics/faculty/w...
[37]

V. V. Nesvizhevsky, H. Börner, A. Gagarski, G. Petrov, A. Petukhov, H. Abele, S. Bäßler, T. Stöferle, and S. Soloviev, Search for quantum states of the neutron in a gravitational field: gravitational lev- els, Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Acce...

2000
[38]

M. A. Doncheski and R. W. Robinett, Expectation value analysis of wave packet solutions for the quantum bouncer: Short-term classical and long-term revival behaviors, American Journal of Physics 69, 1084 (2001)

2001
[39]

Nesvizhevsky, A

V. Nesvizhevsky, A. Petukhov, H. Börner, T. Baranova, A. Gagarski, G. Petrov, K. Protasov, A. Y. Voronin, S. Baeßler, H. Abele,et al., Study of the neutron quantum states in the gravity field, The European Physical Journal C-Particles and Fields40, 479 (2005)

2005
[40]

V. V. Nesvizhevsky, H. G. Börner, A. M. Gagarski, A. K. Petoukhov, G. A. Petrov, H. Abele, S. Baeßler, G. Divkovic, F. J. Rueß, T. Stöferle, A. Westphal, A. V. Strelkov, K. V. Protasov, and A. Y. Voronin, Measurement of quantum states of neutrons in the earth’s gravitational f...

2003 doi
[41]

Abele, S

H. Abele, S. Baeßler, and A. Westphal, Quantum states of neutrons in the gravitational field and limits for non-newtonian interaction in the range between 1µm and 10µm, inQuantum Gravity(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2003) p. 355–366

2003
[42]

Cronenberg, P

G. Cronenberg, P. Brax, H. Filter, P. Geltenbort, T. Jenke, G. Pignol, M. Pitschmann, M. Thalhammer, andH.Abele,Acousticrabioscillationsbetweengravitationalquantumstatesandimpactonsymmetron dark energy, Nature Physics14, 1022 (2018)

2018
[43]

R. L. Gibbs, The quantum bouncer, American Journal of Physics43, 25 (1975)

1975
[44]

Seveso, V

L. Seveso, V. Peri, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum limits to mass sensing in a gravitational field, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical50, 235301 (2017)

2017
[45]

Seveso and M

L. Seveso and M. G. A. Paris, Can quantum probes satisfy the weak equivalence principle?, Annals of Physics380, 213 (2017)

2017
[46]

J.A.Cañas, J.Bernal,andA.Martín-Ruiz,Exactclassicallimitofthequantumbouncer,TheEuropean Physical Journal Plus137, 1 (2022)

2022
[47]

He and M

J. He and M. G. A. Paris, Scrambling for precision: optimizing multiparameter qubit estimation in the face of sloppiness and incompatibility, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.08235 (2025)

2025 arXiv
[48]

Cepollaro, F

C. Cepollaro, F. Giacomini, and M. G. A. Paris, Gravitational time dilation as a resource in quantum sensing, Quantum7, 946 (2023)

2023
[49]

Y. N. Obukhov, A. J. Silenko, and O. V. Teryaev, Manifestations of the rotation and gravity of the earth in high-energy physics experiments, Phys. Rev. D94, 044019 (2016)

2016
[50]

Pierini, Effects of gravity on continuous-variable quantum key distribution, Phys

R. Pierini, Effects of gravity on continuous-variable quantum key distribution, Phys. Rev. D98, 125007 (2018)

2018
[51]

Candeloro, C

A. Candeloro, C. D. E. Boschi, and M. G. A. Paris, Quantum probes for universal gravity corrections, Phys. Rev. D102, 056012 (2020)

2020
[52]

Chiba and S

T. Chiba and S. Kinoshita, Quantum clocks, gravitational time dilation, and quantum interference, Phys. Rev. D106, 124035 (2022)

2022
[53]

Razavian, M

S. Razavian, M. G. A. Paris, and M. G. Genoni, On the quantumness of multiparameter estimation problems for qubit systems, Entropy22(2020)

2020

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

G. Amelino-Camelia, The three perspectives on the quantum-gravity problem and their implications for the fate of lorentz symmetry, inThe Tenth Marcel Grossmann Meeting: On Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation and Relativistic Field Theories (In 3 Volumes)(World Scientific, 2005) pp. 2214–2216

work page 2005

[2] [2]

Weinstein and D

S. Weinstein and D. Rickles, Quantum Gravity, inThe Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2024) Spring 2024 ed. 16

work page 2024

[3] [3]

Ciufolini, A

I. Ciufolini, A. Paolozzi, E. C. Pavlis, R. Koenig, J. Ries, V. Gurzadyan, R. Matzner, R. Penrose, G. Sindoni, C. Paris,et al., A test of general relativity using the lares and lageos satellites and a grace earth gravity model: Measurement of earth’s dragging of inertial frames, The European Physical Journal C76, 1 (2016)

work page 2016

[4] [4]

M. Zych, L. Rudnicki, and I. Pikovski, Gravitational mass of composite systems, Phys. Rev. D99, 104029 (2019)

work page 2019

[5] [5]

Moustos and C

D. Moustos and C. Anastopoulos, Gravity-mediated decoherence, Phys. Rev. D110, 024022 (2024)

work page 2024

[6] [6]

R. Y. Chiao, N. A. Inan, M. Scheibner, J. Sharping, D. A. Singleton, and M. E. Tobar, Gravitational aharonov-bohm effect, Phys. Rev. D109, 064073 (2024)

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Carlesso, A

M. Carlesso, A. Bassi,et al., Observable quantum entanglement due to gravity, npj Quantum Informa- tion6, 20 (2020), arXiv:1907.11696 [quant-ph]

arXiv 2020

[8] [8]

On Diameter Approximation in Directed Graphs

T. Biswas, K. Lochan, and A. Raj, Inference of gravitational field superposition from quantum mea- surements, Physical Review D108, 084038 (2023), arXiv:2307.07583 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2023