Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 4 cited by

Gravity-mediated entanglement via infinite-dimensional systems

T0 review · 2 major / 5 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 A classical mediator, even infinite-dimensional and continuous, cannot entangle two quantum systems.

desk verdict A clean no-go theorem for classical mediators in the C*-algebra formulation, with an honest caveat that the gravity application rests on an unproven identification. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.13201 v2 pith:DARE2HAO submitted 2025-07-17 quant-ph gr-qc

Stefan L. Ludescher , Leon D. Loveridge , Thomas D. Galley , Markus P. Mueller This is my paper
classification quant-phgr-qc MSC 46L0546L3081P4083C45 PACS 04.60.-m03.65.Ud03.67.-a
keywords gravity-mediatedentanglementcommutativeC*-algebrasclassicalmediatorno-gotheoreminfinite-dimensionalsystemstriseparablestatesquantumgravity
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

This paper extends a known no-go result to the case that matters for gravity: a classical mediator cannot create entanglement between two initially independent quantum systems, no matter how large or continuous the classical system is. It models any classical mediator as a commutative unital $C^*$-algebra, which covers discrete systems, classical mechanical phase spaces, and is expected to cover classical field theories. The authors prove that any finite or countable sequence of local interactions between the mediator and one side at a time maps every triseparable initial state to a triseparable state, whose reduction to the two quantum systems is always separable. This closes the loophole left by earlier arguments that only treated finite, bit-like classical mediators, and it strengthens the inference that observing gravitationally mediated entanglement would force the gravitational field to be non-classical.

What carries the argument

The proof is carried by the set of triseparable states on $\mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{G} \otimes \mathcal{B}$ together with two structural facts. One is that every state on the tensor product of a commutative unital $C^*$-algebra with an arbitrary unital $C^*$-algebra is separable; together with the weak*-closedness of triseparable states, this makes every local channel of the stated form preserve triseparability. The other is that the partial trace onto $\mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{B}$ is weak*-continuous, so the reduction of any triseparable state is separable. Commutativity of $\mathcal{G}$ also makes the triple tensor product independent of the chosen $C^*$-norm, and a rebracketing lemma handles the fact that $C^*$-tensor products are not generally associative.

What would settle it

The claim would be refuted by exhibiting one concrete classical mediator model—for example a classical field theory whose observable algebra is a non-unital commutative $C^*$-algebra that cannot be unitized without changing the physics, or any other commutative unital $C^*$-algebra $\mathcal{G}$—together with local completely positive channels of the stated form, an initial triseparable state, and a finite sequence of steps whose reduced state on $\mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{B}$ is entangled. Even one such model would contradict the theorem.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is a theorem: let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ be arbitrary unital $C^*$-algebras, let $\mathcal{G}$ be a commutative unital $C^*$-algebra, and compose them with an arbitrary $C^*$-tensor product. Starting from any triseparable state on $\mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{G} \otimes \mathcal{B}$, every finite or countable sequence of local channels of the form $T_{AG} \otimes \phi_B$ or $\phi_A \otimes T_{GB}$, provided the necessary completely positive extension exists, leaves the reduced state on $\mathcal{A} \otimes \mathcal{B}$ separable. Consequently no classical mediator in this very broad sense can mediate entanglement between two quantum systems, regardless of whether the systems are finite- or infinite-dimensional and regardless of which $C^*$-tensor product is used. The authors take this as removing the main technical restriction in earlier gravity-mediated-entanglement no-go arguments.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on the premise that every physically relevant classical mediator, including the gravitational field, can be faithfully represented as a commutative unital $C^*$-algebra; for classical field theories this identification is stated as expected rather than proven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The classical-mediator no-go now covers continuous and infinite-dimensional classical systems, not just bits or finite discrete systems.
  • The result holds when A and B are arbitrary unital $C^*$-algebras, including operator-algebraic subsystems appearing in quantum field theory, with any $C^*$-tensor product.
  • A positive observation of gravity-induced entanglement would imply that the gravitational field is not describable by a commutative unital $C^*$-algebra coupled locally to matter.
  • The classical-mediator formulation contains the LOCC approach as a special case, so the no-go also applies to entanglement generation via classical communication, including in infinite-step limits.
  • The theorem closes a conceptual loophole in arguments that the gravitational field would have to be non-classical, since continuous classical field models are no longer a possible escape route.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The same argument would apply to any force mediator modeled as a commutative unital $C^*$-algebra, so the result is not specific to gravity: a classical electromagnetic or neutrino field coupled locally in the same way could not entangle two quantum systems.
  • The authors leave open how far the no-go extends to operational definitions of classicality, such as generalized noncontextual ontological models; a natural next step would be to test whether such models can mediate entanglement.
  • A multipartite version of the theorem, if it holds, would imply that classical mediators cannot generate genuine multipartite entanglement among many quantum systems, which could widen the set of table-top witnesses.
  • Because the theorem depends on the existence of a completely positive extension of local channels to the total algebra, realistic models with unbounded interaction Hamiltonians would need to be checked against this condition before applying the conclusion.
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. This paper proves a no-go theorem for entanglement mediation via infinite-dimensional classical systems. The authors model the mediator G as an arbitrary commutative unital C*-algebra, the two quantum systems A and B as arbitrary unital C*-algebras, and the total system as a C*-tensor product. They define triseparable initial states, and consider local channels of the form T_AG⊗φ_B or φ_A⊗T_GB that extend to the triple tensor product. Lemma 1 and Corollary 1 show that such channels preserve triseparability, and Lemma 2 shows that the reduced state on A⊗B of any triseparable state is separable. Lemma 3 addresses the non-associativity of C*-tensor products, and Example 2 shows that the CP-extension assumption is nontrivial. The authors conclude that a classical mediator cannot generate entanglement, reinforcing the claim that gravity-mediated entanglement would witness non-classical features of gravity.

Significance. The formal result is a rigorous and substantial generalization of earlier no-go arguments that modeled classical mediators as finite-dimensional or discrete systems. The proof is self-contained, carefully handles technical operator-algebraic subtleties (non-associativity, weak-* continuity, existence of CP extensions) and is built on established theorems. However, the physical significance for gravity is conditional on an identification that the paper explicitly does not prove: that a classical gravitational field is faithfully represented by a commutative unital C*-algebra and that gravitational couplings are unital CP maps of the assumed form. As a mathematical theorem about commutative C*-algebras, the paper is strong; as a statement about gravity, it currently contains a load-bearing gap.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III and Appendix B] The abstract and Section IV claim that the result rules out classical gravitational fields as mediators in GME experiments. The proof, however, relies on the identification of a classical field theory with a commutative unital C*-algebra G and on the assumption that the A–G and G–B interactions are unital CP maps of the form T_AG⊗φ_B or φ_A⊗T_GB. Appendix B states only that bounded-Borel-function algebras 'are also expected to describe classical systems on infinite-dimensional phase spaces such as classical field theories, even though this is to the best of our knowledge not spelled out explicitly in the literature.' This is an explicit admission that the central physical identification is not established. If the relevant field algebra is non-unital and the unitization does not preserve the physical states or the coupling maps, or if the gravitational interaction requires unbounded observables outside the C*-algebra, the theorem need not apply to gravity. The authors should either provide a rigorous construction of a commutative unital C*-algebra for a classical gravitational field (including verification that the GME interactions define unital CP maps on A⊗G) or explicitly restate the result as conditional on this identification and tone down the abstract and conclusion accordingly.
  2. [Section III, Figure 1] The theorem only considers protocols in which, at each step, either A or B interacts with G, i.e., channels of the form T_AG⊗φ_B or φ_A⊗T_GB. In the GME experiments discussed in the paper, both masses couple to the gravitational field continuously and simultaneously. The authors do not justify that the alternating interaction model is without loss of generality. If the simultaneous evolution cannot be decomposed into a (limit of) alternating local CP channels, the no-go result does not cover the standard GME scenario. Since G is commutative, it is plausible that the two coupling Hamiltonians commute and the evolution can be Trotterized, but this is not shown. Please either prove the reduction or clarify that the theorem applies only to alternating protocols.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Lemma 1 proof, Eq. (4)] In the proof of Lemma 1, the summation index is misprinted as 'Pnβ i1 λi β' instead of 'P nβ i=1 λi_β'; please correct this typo.
  2. [Section IV] The phrase 'reproduces the setting by can Luijk et al.' should read 'by van Luijk et al.'; there is a typo in the author's name.
  3. [Appendix B, Section B.2] The sentence 'This consists of an application of a classical quantum channel on the systems BCA1 CB2 in the mediator setup' is missing tensor-product notation and spaces; please reformat it for readability.
  4. [Abstract and Section III] The phrase 'composed with an arbitrary C*-tensor product' could mislead because the tensor product with a commutative algebra is unique (nuclear); the arbitrariness applies to the composite A⊗B and to the triple product, not to G⊗A. Please clarify the wording.
  5. [Reference [30]] Reference [30] (Weaver, 'Set theory and C*-algebras') lacks full publication details; please complete the bibliographic information.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the no-go theorem is a genuine derivation from external C*-algebraic facts, with only non-load-bearing self-citations and a clearly flagged physical modeling assumption.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and non-circular. The proof of Lemma 1 shows that local channels of the form T_AG ⊗ φ_B map triseparable states to triseparable states; the only imported input is Takesaki's standard result [37] that every state on A⊗G with G commutative is separable (pure states are product states, and the state space is the weak*-closed convex hull of pure states), together with weak*-continuity of the map ω ↦ ω⊗τ. Corollary 1 extends this to countable sequences, and Lemma 2 shows that the restriction map D ↦ D⊗1_G sends triseparable states to separable ones by weak*-continuity and the definition of triseparability. None of these steps assumes the conclusion that a classical mediator cannot mediate entanglement; the conclusion is derived from the definitions and external theorems. The identification of classical mediators with commutative unital C*-algebras is a stipulated modeling assumption, not a result fed into itself; Appendix B explicitly concedes that for infinite-dimensional classical field theories this identification is 'expected' but not 'spelled out explicitly in the literature', which is a physical limitation of scope, not circularity. The only author-overlapping citations ([27] and [48]) are used for context and comparison, not as load-bearing premises, and the key external results cited ([35], [37], and others) are standard and independent of the present authors. There are no fitted parameters, no predicted quantity that is an input by construction, and no uniqueness claim imported from the authors' own prior work.

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

The theorem rests on standard C*-algebraic background (separability of states over commutative algebras, Krein-Milman, GNS) plus three domain assumptions: the modeling of classical systems as commutative unital C*-algebras, the C*-tensor-product composition rule, and the existence of completely positive extensions for local interactions. No free parameters or invented entities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math Every state on the C*-tensor product of a commutative unital C*-algebra and another unital C*-algebra is separable
    Invoked in Lemma 1 via [37] to write any state on A ⊗ G as a limit of convex combinations of product states, which is the key structural input for the no-go proof.
  • standard math The state space of a unital C*-algebra is the weak*-closure of the convex hull of its pure states
    Used in Lemma 1 to decompose separable states into pure product states; standard consequence of Krein-Milman, cited to [34].
  • standard math The Gelfand-Naimark-Segal (GNS) construction represents states as vector states and ensures product states extend to any C*-tensor product
    Used in Proposition 1 and Proposition 2 to prove weak*-continuity of tensoring with a fixed state, which is needed in Lemma 1.
  • domain assumption Classical systems are modeled by commutative unital C*-algebras
    This defines the scope of the theorem: the mediator is classical iff its observable algebra is commutative and unital. The paper argues this includes finite/discrete systems and, via bounded Borel functions, classical mechanics; for field theories it is expected but not proven (Appendix B).
  • domain assumption The composite system is described by an arbitrary C*-tensor product of the component algebras
    The proof requires A ⊗ G ⊗ B to be a C*-tensor product; the authors discuss the operational meaning via local tomography [52, Theorem 5] and handle non-associativity with Lemma 3.
  • domain assumption Local interactions are unital completely positive maps of the form T_AG ⊗ φ_B or φ_A ⊗ T_GB, and extend to channels on the total C*-tensor product
    This formalizes locality in the GME setup. Example 2 shows a CP extension need not exist, so the assumption is essential; the paper justifies it as physical implementability of the interaction.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gravity-mediated entanglement via infinite-dimensional systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DARE2HAO

@misc{pith2026250713201,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gravity-mediated entanglement via infinite-dimensional systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DARE2HAO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.13201}
}
read the original abstract

There has been a wave of recent interest in detecting the quantum nature of gravity with table-top experiments that witness gravitationally mediated entanglement. Central to these proposals is the assumption that any mediator capable of generating entanglement must itself be nonclassical. However, previous arguments for this have modelled classical mediators as finite, discrete systems such as bits, which excludes physically relevant continuous and infinite-dimensional systems such as those of classical mechanics and field theory. In this work, we close this gap by modelling classical systems as commutative unital C*-algebras, arguably encompassing all potentially physically relevant classical systems. We show that these systems cannot mediate entanglement between two quantum systems A and B, even if A and B are themselves infinite-dimensional or described by arbitrary unital C*-algebras (as in Quantum Field Theory), composed with an arbitrary C*-tensor product. This result reinforces the conclusion that the observation of gravity-induced entanglement would require the gravitational field to possess inherently non-classical features.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.13201 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: We consider two quantum systems [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. ). To every (open and relatively compact) region R of Minkowski spacetime, there is a von Neumann algebra A(R) of operators associated with that region. Consider two spacelike separated regions RA and RB, then Einstein causality means that [A(RA), A(RB)] = 0. If RB is the full causal complement of RA, then we have Haag duality [44], and A(RB) = A(RA) ′ , which reproduces the setting by can Luijk et al. On the other … view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Classical theories of gravity produce entanglement

    quant-ph 2025-10 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In quantum field theory, a classical gravitational potential can entangle two superposed masses through virtual matter exchange, so gravitationally induced entanglement is not by itself proof of quantum gravity.

  2. Emergence of Non-Markovian Classical-Quantum Dynamics from Decoherence

    quant-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Decoherence with a hidden environment in fully quantum systems produces effective non-Markovian classical-quantum dynamics, valid when the semi-Wigner operator remains positive semidefinite, reducing to Markovian CQ m...

  3. Local Operations and Field Mediated Entanglement without a Local Tensor Product Structure

    quant-ph 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In a QED-like lattice model, gauge-invariant local algebras restore a sector-wise tensor product, allowing the LOCC theorem to hold and implying field-mediated entanglement requires non-classical field mediation.

  4. Rethinking quantum information in gravity and fields

    hep-th 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 2.0 of 10

    The paper organizes important open questions in quantum gravity and quantum information into four themes without presenting new results or derivations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

71 extracted references · 65 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Schneider N

    M. Schneider N. Huggett, N. Linnemann,Quantum gravity in a laboratory?, arXiv:2205.09013

    arXiv

  2. [2]

    S. Bose, I. Fuentes, A. A. Geraci, S. M. Khan, S. Qvarfort, M. Rademacher, M. Rashid, M. Toroš, H. Ulbricht, and C. C. Wanjura,Massive quantum systems as interfaces of quantum mechanics and gravityRev. Mod. Phys.97, 015003 (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroš, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. S. Kim, G. Milburn,Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.119:240401 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral,Gravitationally Induced Entanglement between Two Massive Particles is Sufficient Evidence of Quantum Effects in Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240402 (2017)

    work page 2017

  5. [5]

    Møller, inLes théories relativistes de la gravitationed

    C. Møller, inLes théories relativistes de la gravitationed. A. L. M. A. Tonnelat (Paris: CNRS) pp. 1–96 (1962)

    work page 1962

  6. [6]

    Rosenfeld,On quantization of fieldsNuclear Physics40, 353–356 (1963)

    L. Rosenfeld,On quantization of fieldsNuclear Physics40, 353–356 (1963)

    work page 1963

  7. [7]

    Bahrami, A

    M. Bahrami, A. Großardt, S. Donadi, and A. Bassi,The Schrödinger–Newton equation and its foundationsNew J. Phys. 16, 115007 (2014)

    work page 2014

  8. [8]

    Anastopoulos and B

    C. Anastopoulos and B. L. Hu,Problems with the Newton–Schrödinger equationsNew J. Phys.16, 085007 (2014)

    work page 2014

Show all 71 references
  1. [9]

    Mielnik,Mobility of nonlinear systemsJournal of Mathematical Physics21, 44–54 (1980)

    B. Mielnik,Mobility of nonlinear systemsJournal of Mathematical Physics21, 44–54 (1980)

    1980

  2. [10]

    Gisin,Stochastic quantum dynamics and relativityHelv

    N. Gisin,Stochastic quantum dynamics and relativityHelv. Phys. Acta62, 363–371 (1989)

    1989

  3. [11]

    Gisin,Weinberg’s non-linear quantum mechanics and supraluminal communicationsPhys

    N. Gisin,Weinberg’s non-linear quantum mechanics and supraluminal communicationsPhys. Lett. A143, 1–2 (1990)

    1990

  4. [12]

    Oppenheim,A Postquantum Theory of Classical Gravity?, Phys

    J. Oppenheim,A Postquantum Theory of Classical Gravity?, Phys. Rev. X13, 041040 (2023)

    2023

  5. [13]

    Tilloy,General quantum-classical dynamics as measurement based feedback, SciPost Phys.17, 083 (2024)

    A. Tilloy,General quantum-classical dynamics as measurement based feedback, SciPost Phys.17, 083 (2024)

    2024

  6. [14]

    Diósi,Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuationsPhys

    L. Diósi,Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuationsPhys. Rev. A40, 1165 (1989)

    1989

  7. [15]

    Penrose,On gravity’s role in quantum state reductionGeneral relativity and gravitation28, 581 (1996)

    R. Penrose,On gravity’s role in quantum state reductionGeneral relativity and gravitation28, 581 (1996)

    1996

  8. [16]

    Trillo and M

    D. Trillo and M. Navascués,Diósi-Penrose model of classical gravity predicts gravitationally induced entanglement, Phys. Rev. D111, L121101 (2025)

    2025

  9. [17]

    Fragkos, M

    V. Fragkos, M. Kopp, I. PikovskiOn inference of quantization from gravitationally induced entanglement,AVS Quantum Science,4(4):045601, 11 (2022)

    2022

  10. [18]

    Vindication of entanglement-based witnesses of non-classicality in hybrid systems

    M. J. W. Hall and M. Reginatto,Comment on "Vindication of entanglement-based witnesses of non-classicality in hybrid systems"arXiv:2111.05033

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Martín-Martínez and T

    E. Martín-Martínez and T. R. Perche,What gravity mediated entanglement can really tell us about quantum gravityPhys. Rev. D108, L101702 (2023)

    2023

  12. [20]

    M. M. Marchese, M. Plávala, M. Kleinmann, and S. Nimmrichter,Newton’s laws of motion generating gravity-mediated entanglementPhys. Rev. A111, 042202 (2025). 9

    2025

  13. [21]

    Christodoulou, A

    M. Christodoulou, A. Di Biagio, R. Howl, and C. Rovelli,Gravity entanglement, quantum reference systems, degrees of freedom,Classical and Quantum Gravity,40(4):047001 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    Christodoulou, A

    M. Christodoulou, A. Di Biagio, M. Aspelmeyer, Č. Brukner, C. Rovelli, R. Howl,Locally Mediated Entanglement in Linearized Quantum GravityPhys. Rev. Lett.130, 100202 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, M. Schut, and M. Toroš,Mechanism for the quantum natured gravitons to entangle massesPhys. Rev. D105, 106028 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    Christodoulou, C

    M. Christodoulou, C. Rovelli,On the possibility of laboratory evidence for quantum superposition of geometries, Physics Letters B,792:64–68 (2019)

    2019

  17. [25]

    R. J. Marshman, A. Mazumdar, and S. Bose,Locality and entanglement in table-top testing of the quantum nature of linearized gravity, Phys. Rev. A101, 052110 (2020)

    2020

  18. [26]

    D. L. Danielson, G. Satishchandran, and R. M. Wald,Gravitationally mediated entanglement: Newtonian field versus gravitons, Phys. Rev. D105, 086001 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    T. D. Galley, F. Giacomini, J. H. Selby,A no-go theorem on the nature of the gravitational field beyond quantum theory Quantum6, 779 (2022)

    2022

  20. [28]

    Altamirano, P

    N. Altamirano, P. Corona-Ugalde, R. B. Mann, and M. Zych,Gravity is not a pairwise local classical channelClassical and Quantum Gravity35, 145005 (2018)

    2018

  21. [29]

    Landsman,Foundations of Quantum Theory: From Classical Concepts to Operator Algebras, Springer Cham (2017)

    K. Landsman,Foundations of Quantum Theory: From Classical Concepts to Operator Algebras, Springer Cham (2017)

    2017

  22. [30]

    WeaverSet theory and C*-algebrasBulletin of Symbolic Logic.13(1):1-20

    N. WeaverSet theory and C*-algebrasBulletin of Symbolic Logic.13(1):1-20. doi:10.2178/bsl/1174668215 (2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    Avilés, M

    A. Avilés, M. Japón, C. Lennard, G. Martínez Cervantes, A. StawskiThe ball fixed point property in spaces of continuous functionsarXiv:2506.17995

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    R. Duvenhage,The general structure and ergodic properties of quantum and classical mechanics: A unified C*-algebraic approach, PhD thesis, University of Pretoria, arXiv:quant-ph/0312051

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Gelfand, M

    I. Gelfand, M. Neumark,On the imbedding of normed rings into the ring of operators in Hilbert space, Sb. Math.,54:2 (1943)

    1943

  26. [34]

    Bratteli and D

    O. Bratteli and D. W. Robinson,Operator Algebras and Quantum Statistical Mechanics 1: C*- and W*-Algebras. Symmetry Groups. Decomposition of States, Springer Verlag, (1987)

    1987

  27. [35]

    TakesakiOn the cross-norm of the direct product of C*-algebras, The Tohoku Mathematical Journal, Second Series, 16: 111–122 (1964)

    M. TakesakiOn the cross-norm of the direct product of C*-algebras, The Tohoku Mathematical Journal, Second Series, 16: 111–122 (1964)

    1964

  28. [36]

    Eggeling and R

    T. Eggeling and R. F. Werner,Separability properties of tripartite states withU⊗U⊗Usymmetry, Phys. Rev. A63, 042111 (2001)

    2001

  29. [37]

    Takesaki,Theory of Operator Algebras I, Springer New York, NY (1979)

    M. Takesaki,Theory of Operator Algebras I, Springer New York, NY (1979)

    1979

  30. [38]

    Ohya and D

    M. Ohya and D. Petz,Quantum Entropy and Its Use, Theoretical and Mathematical Physics, Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg (1993)

    1993

  31. [39]

    Russo, H

    B. Russo, H. A. DyeA note on unitary operators in C*-algebras, Duke Math. J.33, 413–416 (1966)

    1966

  32. [40]

    J. B. Conway,A Course in Functional Analysis, Second Edition, Springer Verlag (2007)

    2007

  33. [41]

    van Luijk, A

    L. van Luijk, A. Stottmeister, R. F. Werner, and H. Wilming,Relativistic Quantum Fields Are Universal Entanglement Embezzlers, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 261602 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    van Luijk, A

    L. van Luijk, A. Stottmeister, R. F. Werner, and H. Wilming,Embezzlement of entanglement, quantum fields, and the classification of von Neumann algebras, arXiv:2401.07299

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    van Luijk, A

    L. van Luijk, A. Stottmeister, R. F. Werner, and H. Wilming,Pure state entanglement and von Neumann algebras, arXiv:2409.17739

  36. [44]

    Haag,Local Quantum Physics, Springer Verlag, Berlin (1996)

    R. Haag,Local Quantum Physics, Springer Verlag, Berlin (1996)

    1996

  37. [45]

    Haag duality

    for a more detailed discussion. FIG. 2: In Fig. 2a, regionRB is the full causal complement of regionRA, and thus we have Haag duality A(RB) =A(R A)′. In this case, there is no analogue of product states and hence no meaningful notion of independently locally prepared systems. ...

  38. [46]

    C. J. Fewster,The split property for quantum field theories in flat and curved spacetimes, arXiv:1601.06936

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Brunetti, K

    R. Brunetti, K. Fredenhagen, P. Imani, and K. Rejzner,The locality axiom in quantum field theory and tensor products of C*-algebras, Reviews in Mathematical Physics26(6), 1450010 (2014)

    2014

  40. [48]

    N. T. Vidal, C. Marletto, V. Vedral, and G. Chiribella,Bose-Marletto-Vedral experiment without observable spacetime superpositionsarXiv:2506.21122

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    M. P. Müller,Probabilistic theories and reconstructions of quantum theory,SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes28(2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Plávala,General probabilistic theories: An introduction,Phys

    M. Plávala,General probabilistic theories: An introduction,Phys. Rep.1033, 1–p64 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    W. K. Wootters,Quantum Mechanics without Probability Amplitudes, Found. Phys.16(4), 391 (1985)

    1985

  44. [52]

    Hardy,Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms, arXiv:quant-ph/0101012

    L. Hardy,Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms, arXiv:quant-ph/0101012

    arXiv

  45. [53]

    van Luijk, R

    L. van Luijk, R. Schwonnek, A. Stottmeister, and R. F. Werner,The Schmidt rank for the commuting operator framework, Commun. Math. Phys.405, 152 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Schmid, J

    D. Schmid, J. H. Selby, and R. W. Spekkens,Addressing some common objections to generalized noncontextuality, arXiv:2302.07282

    arXiv

  47. [55]

    D. Miki, A. Matsumara, and K. Yamamoto,Entanglement and decoherence of massive particles due to gravity, Phys. Rev. D103, 026017 (2021)

    2021

  48. [56]

    Ghosal, A

    P. Ghosal, A. Ghosal, and S. Bandyopadhyay,Distribution of quantum gravity induced entanglement in many-body systems, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor.57, 445302 (2024)

    2024

  49. [57]

    G. J. Murphy,C*-Algebras and Operator Theory, Academic Press (1990)

    1990

  50. [58]

    Brückler,Tensor products of C*-algebras, operator spaces and Hilbert C*-modules, Mathematical communications 4.2: 257-268 (1999)

    1999

  51. [59]

    N. P. Brown and Narutaka Ozawa. C∗-Algebras and Finite-Dimensional Approximations, Vol.88. American Mathematical Soc. (2008). 10

    2008

  52. [60]

    Ozawa and G

    N. Ozawa and G. Pisier,A continuum ofC∗-norms onB(H)⊗B(H)and related tensor products, Glasgow Math. J.58, 433-443 (2016)

    2016

  53. [61]

    Paulsen,Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Algebras, Cambridge University Press (2003)

    V. Paulsen,Completely Bounded Maps and Operator Algebras, Cambridge University Press (2003)

    2003

  54. [62]

    Junge and G

    M. Junge and G. Pisier,Bilinear forms on exact operator spaces andB(H)⊗B(H), Geometric and Functional Analysis 5, 329–363 (1995)

    1995

  55. [63]

    Ryszard Horodecki, Pawel Horodecki, Michal Horodecki, and Karol Horodecki,Quantum entanglement, Reviews of Modern Physics81, 865–942 (2009)

    2009

  56. [64]

    Chitambar, D

    E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Mančinska, M. Ozols and A. Winter,Everything you always wanted to know about LOCC (but were afraid to ask), Communications in Mathematical Physics, (2014)

    2014

  57. [65]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral,Why we need to quantise everything, including gravity, npj Quantum Information volume3, Article number: 29 (2017)

    2017

  58. [66]

    Verch and R

    R. Verch and R. F. Werner,Distillability and positivity of partial transposes in general quantum field systems, Rev. Math. Phys.17, 545–576 (2005)

    2005

  59. [67]

    A. K. Jensen and P. Vrana,The Asymptotic Spectrum of LOCC Transformations, IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol.66, no. 1, pp. 155-166 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    rebracketing

    S. M. Cohen,Asymptotic implementation of multipartite quantum channels and other quantum instruments using local operations and classical communication, arXiv:2310.05362. Appendix A: C*-Algebras In the appendix, we will give an overview of some definitions and facts aboutC∗-al...

  61. [69]

    For more details, see e.g

    LOCC protocols In the following, we outline the definition of two-party LOCC operations. For more details, see e.g. [63]. We note that while there exist generalizations of the definition of LOCC to the case of von Neumann algebras [43] and of C ∗-algebras [65], we restrict our...

  62. [70]

    In the following, we denote the classical systemℓ∞ of Example 1 by∆∞ and the finite-dimensional classical system overnpoints by∆n

    LOCC protocols using a classical mediator (finite number of rounds) In the following we establish that finite round LOCC protocols can be implemented by two parties sharing a classical mediator, similarly as used in [66] for finite mediators. In the following, we denote the cl...

  63. [71]

    Infinite-round LOCC instruments and channels It is well-known that there are quantum instruments that are not inplementable exactly by any finite-round LOCC protocol, but that can nonetheless be approximated to arbitrary accuracy by such LOCC protocols. There are two 17 versio...

Pith tools

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