pith. sign in

arxiv: 2508.03052 · v3 · submitted 2025-08-05 · 🪐 quant-ph · gr-qc

Existing experiments suffice to indirectly verify the quantum essence of gravity

Martin Pl\'avala This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-19 01:23 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph gr-qc
keywords quantum gravitygravity-mediated entanglementmatter-wave interferometrySchrödinger equationquantum informationentanglement generationdelocalized systems
0
0 comments X

The pith

Verifying the Schrödinger equation for one delocalized gravitational system implies gravity-mediated entanglement between two such systems.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that current matter-wave interferometers already provide enough data to indirectly confirm the quantum character of gravity. It proves that experimental verification of the Schrödinger equation in the case of one delocalized system interacting gravitationally with an external mass leads, under one of two reasonable assumptions, to the generation of entanglement when two delocalized systems interact gravitationally. This bypasses the need for direct gravity-mediated entanglement experiments that remain technologically out of reach. A sympathetic reader cares because the result connects existing laboratory capabilities directly to the question of whether gravity must be treated as a quantum field.

Core claim

If we experimentally verify the Schrödinger equation for a single delocalized system interacting gravitationally with an external mass, then, under one of two reasonable assumptions, the time evolution of two delocalized systems will lead to gravity-mediated entanglement.

What carries the argument

The logical reduction from single-system Schrödinger verification to two-system entanglement generation under gravitational interaction.

If this is right

  • Current matter-wave interferometers suffice to test whether gravity generates entanglement.
  • Direct observation of gravity-mediated entanglement is not required to establish the quantum nature of gravity.
  • The time evolution under verified single-system dynamics already constrains the two-system gravitational interaction.
  • Existing experimental results can be reinterpreted to bound classical versus quantum descriptions of gravity.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Reanalysis of archived interferometry data could already yield evidence for or against the quantum character of gravity.
  • The same implication structure might apply to other long-range interactions where single-particle dynamics are well tested.
  • If the assumptions can be independently verified, the result lowers the technological bar for probing quantum gravity.

Load-bearing premise

The two reasonable assumptions hold that allow verification for one delocalized gravitational system to imply entanglement generation for two such systems.

What would settle it

An experiment that confirms the Schrödinger equation for one delocalized system in a gravitational field with an external mass but fails to produce the predicted entanglement when two such systems interact gravitationally.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.03052 by Martin Pl\'avala.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The spacetime diagram depicting two mass interfer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: The experimental setup to verify the Schrödinger equation in the regime where gravity-mediated entanglement was [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_3.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The gravity-mediated entanglement experiments employ concepts from quantum information to argue that if entanglement due to gravitational interaction is observed, then gravity cannot be described by a classical system. However, the proposed experiments remain beyond our current technological capability, with optimistic projections placing the experiment outside of the short-term future. Here we argue that current matter-wave interferometers are sufficient to indirectly prove that gravitational interaction creates entanglement between two systems. Specifically, we prove that if we experimentally verify the Schr\"odinger equation for a single delocalized system interacting gravitationally with an external mass, then, under one of two reasonable assumptions, the time evolution of two delocalized systems will lead to gravity-mediated entanglement.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that verifying the Schrödinger equation for a single delocalized quantum system under gravitational interaction with an external mass is sufficient to conclude, under one of two reasonable assumptions, that the time evolution of two delocalized systems will generate gravity-mediated entanglement. This is positioned as an indirect verification of the quantum nature of gravity using existing matter-wave interferometers rather than technologically demanding direct entanglement experiments.

Significance. If the logical implication holds without circularity, the result would indicate that current experimental setups in matter-wave interferometry can provide evidence for quantum aspects of gravity. This could meaningfully advance the field by linking single-system quantum dynamics to multi-system entanglement generation via gravity, potentially allowing analysis of existing data to address questions previously thought to require future experiments.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract and main derivation section] The central claim rests on two unspecified 'reasonable assumptions' that connect single-system Schrödinger verification to two-system entanglement generation. These assumptions must be stated explicitly (e.g., in the section containing the main proof) with clear motivation from standard quantum mechanics and Newtonian gravity, and shown not to presuppose the quantized interaction or entanglement-producing Hamiltonian form that is the target conclusion.
  2. [Theoretical argument (around the proof of the implication)] The argument that existing interferometers suffice for indirect verification depends on the validity of the implication step; without the explicit assumptions and their independence from the final result, it is not possible to confirm that the single-system experimental verification alone entails the two-system entanglement outcome.
minor comments (2)
  1. [Discussion of existing experiments] Clarify the precise experimental signatures in current matter-wave interferometers that would constitute verification of the single-system Schrödinger equation under gravity.
  2. [Notation and setup] Ensure all notation for delocalized systems and gravitational interaction is defined consistently when moving from the single- to two-system case.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their careful reading and constructive comments. We address each major comment below and have revised the manuscript to improve clarity on the assumptions and the implication proof.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract and main derivation section] The central claim rests on two unspecified 'reasonable assumptions' that connect single-system Schrödinger verification to two-system entanglement generation. These assumptions must be stated explicitly (e.g., in the section containing the main proof) with clear motivation from standard quantum mechanics and Newtonian gravity, and shown not to presuppose the quantized interaction or entanglement-producing Hamiltonian form that is the target conclusion.

    Authors: We agree that the assumptions require explicit statement for rigor. In the revised manuscript we have added a dedicated paragraph in the main derivation section that states the two assumptions verbatim, motivates each from the linearity of the Schrödinger equation and the universal Newtonian gravitational coupling, and shows that neither assumption encodes the quantized-field or entanglement-generating Hamiltonian that is the target conclusion. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Theoretical argument (around the proof of the implication)] The argument that existing interferometers suffice for indirect verification depends on the validity of the implication step; without the explicit assumptions and their independence from the final result, it is not possible to confirm that the single-system experimental verification alone entails the two-system entanglement outcome.

    Authors: We have expanded the theoretical argument section with a step-by-step derivation that now explicitly invokes the newly stated assumptions and demonstrates, without circularity, that single-system Schrödinger verification plus those assumptions entails gravity-mediated entanglement for two systems. The derivation treats the assumptions as independent of the quantized nature of gravity. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: logical implication from single-system Schrödinger verification to two-system entanglement under independent assumptions

full rationale

The paper's central claim is a deductive proof: experimental confirmation that a single delocalized system obeys the Schrödinger equation when interacting gravitationally with an external mass entails, under one of two reasonable assumptions, that two such systems generate gravity-mediated entanglement. No equations or steps reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or prior self-citations whose content is unverified. The derivation is presented as following from standard quantum mechanics plus gravitational interaction, with the assumptions serving as explicit bridges rather than hidden encodings of the conclusion. This is the normal case of a self-contained theoretical argument against external benchmarks.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The claim rests on the Schrödinger equation as an experimentally verifiable description of single-particle gravitational interaction plus two unspecified assumptions that extend the description to two particles.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Schrödinger equation governs the time evolution of a single delocalized system interacting gravitationally with an external mass.
    This is the experimental verification the paper takes as given.
  • ad hoc to paper One of two reasonable assumptions holds that allows the single-system result to imply two-system entanglement.
    These assumptions are invoked to complete the implication but are not stated in the abstract.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5631 in / 1360 out tokens · 38977 ms · 2026-05-19T01:23:49.766655+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · 2 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    Kiefer,Quantum Gravity, International series of monographs on physics (Oxford University Press, 2012)

    C. Kiefer,Quantum Gravity, International series of monographs on physics (Oxford University Press, 2012)

    work page 2012

  2. [2]

    Colella, A

    R. Colella, A. W. Overhauser, and S. A. Werner, Obser- vation of gravitationally induced quantum interference, Physical Review Letters34, 1472 (1975)

    work page 1975

  3. [3]

    Asenbaum, C

    P. Asenbaum, C. Overstreet, T. Kovachy, D. D. Brown, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich, Phase shift in an atom interferometer due to spacetime curvature across its wave function, Physical Review Letters118, 183602 (2017)

    work page 2017

  4. [4]

    Overstreet, P

    C. Overstreet, P. Asenbaum, J. Curti, M. Kim, and M. A. Kasevich,ObservationofagravitationalAharonov-Bohm effect, Science375, 226 (2022)

    work page 2022

  5. [5]

    C. D. Panda, M. J. Tao, M. Ceja, J. Khoury, G. M. Tino, and H. Müller, Measuring gravitational attraction with a lattice atom interferometer, Nature631, 515 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    R. F. Werner, Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky- Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, Physical Review A40, 4277 (1989)

    work page 1989

  7. [7]

    A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s the- orem, Physical Review Letters67, 661 (1991)

    work page 1991

  8. [8]

    Entanglement and Quantum Computation

    R. Jozsa, Entanglement and quantum computation, arXiv:quant-ph/9707034 (1997)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  9. [9]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroš, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. Kim, and G. Milburn, Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity, Physical Review Letters119, 240401 (2017)

    work page 2017

  10. [10]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Gravitationally induced en- tanglement between two massive particles is sufficient ev- idenceofquantumeffectsingravity,PhysicalReviewLet- ters119, 240402 (2017)

    work page 2017

  11. [11]

    Tilloy, Does gravity have to be quantized? Lessons from non-relativistic toy models, inJournal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol

    A. Tilloy, Does gravity have to be quantized? Lessons from non-relativistic toy models, inJournal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 1275 (2019) p. 012006

    work page 2019

  12. [12]

    Oppenheim, Is it time to rethink quantum gravity?, International Journal of Modern Physics D32, 2342024 5 (2023)

    J. Oppenheim, Is it time to rethink quantum gravity?, International Journal of Modern Physics D32, 2342024 5 (2023)

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    M. J. Hall and M. Reginatto, On two recent proposals for witnessing nonclassical gravity, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical51, 085303 (2018)

    work page 2018

  14. [14]

    Anastopoulos, M

    C. Anastopoulos, M. Lagouvardos, and K. Savvidou, Gravitational effects in macroscopic quantum systems: a first-principles analysis, Classical and Quantum Gravity 38, 155012 (2021)

    work page 2021

  15. [15]

    Fragkos, M

    V. Fragkos, M. Kopp, and I. Pikovski, On inference of quantization from gravitationally induced entanglement, AVS Quantum Science4, 045601 (2022)

    work page 2022

  16. [16]

    M. K. Döner and A. Großardt, Is gravitational entangle- ment evidence for the quantization of spacetime?, Foun- dations of Physics52, 101 (2022)

    work page 2022

  17. [17]

    R. J. Marshman, A. Mazumdar, and S. Bose, Locality and entanglement in table-top testing of the quantum na- ture of linearized gravity, Physical Review A101, 052110 (2020)

    work page 2020

  18. [18]

    Christodoulou, A

    M. Christodoulou, A. Di Biagio, R. Howl, and C. Rov- elli, Gravity entanglement, quantum reference systems, degrees of freedom, arXiv:2207.03138 (2022)

    work page arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

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

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, M. Schut, and M. Toroš, Mech- anism for the quantum natured gravitons to entangle masses, Physical Review D105, 106028 (2022)

    work page 2022

  21. [21]

    Christodoulou, A

    M. Christodoulou, A. Di Biagio, M. Aspelmeyer, Č. Brukner, C. Rovelli, and R. Howl, Locally mediated entanglement in linearized quantum gravity, Physical Re- view Letters130, 100202 (2023)

    work page 2023

  22. [22]

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

    work page 2025

  23. [23]

    Trillo and M

    D. Trillo and M. Navascués, Diósi-Penrose model of clas- sical gravity predicts gravitationally induced entangle- ment, Physical Review D111, L121101 (2025)

    work page 2025

  24. [24]

    Tibau Vidal, C

    N. Tibau Vidal, C. Marletto, V. Vedral, and G. Chiri- bella, Bose-Marletto-Vedral experiment without observ- able spacetime superpositions, arXiv:2506.21122 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Oppenheim, A postquantum theory of classical grav- ity?, Physical Review X13, 041040 (2023)

    J. Oppenheim, A postquantum theory of classical grav- ity?, Physical Review X13, 041040 (2023)

    work page 2023

  26. [26]

    M. Aspelmeyer, When Zeh Meets Feynman: how to avoid the appearance of a classical world in gravity experi- ments, inFrom Quantum to Classical: Essays in Honour of H.-Dieter Zeh(2022) pp. 85–95

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    Kovachy, P

    T. Kovachy, P. Asenbaum, C. Overstreet, C. A. Donnelly, S. M. Dickerson, A. Sugarbaker, J. M. Hogan, and M. A. Kasevich,Quantumsuperpositionatthehalf-metrescale, Nature528, 530 (2015)

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    C. D. Panda, M. Tao, J. Egelhoff, M. Ceja, V. Xu, and H. Müller, Coherence limits in lattice atom interferom- etry at the one-minute scale, Nature Physics20, 1234 (2024)

    work page 2024

  29. [29]

    Plávala, S

    M. Plávala, S. Nimmrichter, and M. Kleinmann, Prob- ing the nonclassical dynamics of a quantum particle in a gravitational field, arXiv:2502.03489 (2025)

    work page arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Jamiołkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Reports on Mathematical Physics3, 275 (1972)

    A. Jamiołkowski, Linear transformations which preserve trace and positive semidefiniteness of operators, Reports on Mathematical Physics3, 275 (1972)

    work page 1972

  31. [31]

    Choi, Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices, Linear Algebra and its Applications10, 285 (1975)

    M.-D. Choi, Completely positive linear maps on complex matrices, Linear Algebra and its Applications10, 285 (1975)

    work page 1975

  32. [32]

    S. P. Boyd and L. Vandenberghe,Convex optimization (Cambridge university press, 2004)

    work page 2004

  33. [33]

    Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Physical Review Letters77, 1413 (1996)

    A. Peres, Separability criterion for density matrices, Physical Review Letters77, 1413 (1996)

    work page 1996

  34. [34]

    Horodecki, P

    M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, and R. Horodecki, Separa- bility of n-particle mixed states: necessary and sufficient conditions in terms of linear maps, Physics Letters A 283, 1 (2001)

    work page 2001

  35. [35]

    Sagnol and M

    G. Sagnol and M. Stahlberg, PICOS: A Python interface to conic optimization solvers, Journal of Open Source Software7, 3915 (2022)

    work page 2022

  36. [36]

    https://github.com/mplavala/gme-from-schroedinger

    work page

  37. [37]

    Y. Y. Fein, P. Geyer, P. Zwick, F. Kiałka, S. Pedalino, M. Mayor, S. Gerlich, and M. Arndt, Quantum super- position of molecules beyond 25 kda, Nature Physics15, 1242 (2019)

    work page 2019

  38. [38]

    Schlippert, J

    D. Schlippert, J. Hartwig, H. Albers, L. L. Richardson, C. Schubert, A. Roura, W. P. Schleich, W. Ertmer, and E. M. Rasel, Quantum test of the universality of free fall, Physical Review Letters112, 203002 (2014)

    work page 2014

  39. [39]

    Hartwig, S

    J. Hartwig, S. Abend, C. Schubert, D. Schlippert, H. Ahlers, K. Posso-Trujillo, N. Gaaloul, W. Ertmer, and E. M. Rasel, Testing the universality of free fall with ru- bidium and ytterbium in a very large baseline atom in- terferometer, New Journal of Physics17, 035011 (2015)

    work page 2015

  40. [40]

    G. Rosi, G. D’Amico, L. Cacciapuoti, F. Sorrentino, M. Prevedelli, M. Zych, Č. Brukner, and G. M. Tino, Quantum test of the equivalence principle for atoms in coherent superposition of internal energy states, Nature Communications8, 15529 (2017)

    work page 2017

  41. [41]

    Bhadra, K

    A. Bhadra, K. Sarkar, R. N. Izmailov, and K. K. Nandi, Test of universality of free fall for neutrinos, Physical Review D110, 064046 (2024)

    work page 2024

  42. [42]

    Tan, A.-B

    W.-H. Tan, A.-B. Du, W.-C. Dong, S.-Q. Yang, C.-G. Shao, S.-G. Guan, Q.-L. Wang, B.-F. Zhan, P.-S. Luo, L.-C. Tu, and J. Luo, Improvement for testing the grav- itational inverse-square law at the submillimeter range, Physical Review Letters124, 051301 (2020)

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    Westphal, H

    T. Westphal, H. Hepach, J. Pfaff, and M. As- pelmeyer, Measurement of gravitational coupling be- tween millimetre-sized masses, Nature591, 225 (2021)

    work page 2021

  44. [44]

    T. M. Fuchs, D. G. Uitenbroek, J. Plugge, N. van Hal- teren, J.-P. van Soest, A. Vinante, H. Ulbricht, and T. H. Oosterkamp, Measuring gravity with milligram levitated masses, Science Advances10, eadk2949 (2024)

    work page 2024

  45. [45]

    Di Biagio, R

    A. Di Biagio, R. Howl, Č. Brukner, C. Rovelli, and M. Christodoulou, Relativistic locality can imply subsys- tem locality (2023)

    work page 2023

  46. [46]

    Plávala and M

    M. Plávala and M. Kleinmann, Operational theories in phase space: Toy model for the harmonic oscillator, Physical Review Letters128, 040405 (2022)

    work page 2022

  47. [47]

    Plávala and M

    M. Plávala and M. Kleinmann, Generalized dynamical theories in phase space and the hydrogen atom, Physical Review A108, 052212 (2023)

    work page 2023

  48. [48]

    Quantum Theory From Five Reasonable Axioms

    L. Hardy, Quantum theory from five reasonable axioms, arXiv:quant-ph/0101012 (2001)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  49. [49]

    Chiribella, G

    G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, and P. Perinotti, Infor- mational derivation of quantum theory, Physical Review A84, 012311 (2011)

    work page 2011

  50. [50]

    Overstreet, P

    C. Overstreet, P. Asenbaum, and M. A. Kasevich, Phys- ically significant phase shifts in matter-wave interferom- etry, American Journal of Physics89, 324 (2021)

    work page 2021

  51. [51]

    Bhatia, Positive definite matrices, inPositive Definite Matrices(Princeton university press, 2009)

    R. Bhatia, Positive definite matrices, inPositive Definite Matrices(Princeton university press, 2009). 6

    work page 2009

  52. [52]

    Fawzi, The set of separable states has no finite semidefinite representation except in dimension 3×2, Communications in Mathematical Physics386, 1319 (2021)

    H. Fawzi, The set of separable states has no finite semidefinite representation except in dimension 3×2, Communications in Mathematical Physics386, 1319 (2021). Appendix A: Analytic proof that Schrödinger equation for single delocalized system and complete positivity of time evolution implies gravity-mediated entanglement LetHbe a finite-dimensional compl...

    work page 2021

  53. [53]

    or counteracted in lattice interferometers [28]. We will now assume that it is experimentally verified that if only one of the two systems is delocalized, then the time evolution is given by the Schroödinger equation: experiments to explicitly verify this claim were recently shown to be feasible with existing technology [29]. This assumption yields that f...

    work page