Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 52 references

Violation of the Leggett-Garg inequality in photon-graviton conversion

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that an initially single photon oscillating into a graviton in a magnetic field produces temporal correlations that violate the Leggett-Garg inequality, reaching $K_3 = 3/2$.

desk verdict Correct algebra, unsupported conclusion: the K3>1 violation in photon-graviton conversion is an artifact of invasive projective measurements, not evidence against macroscopic realism. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.20436 v2 pith:I3ATP53M submitted 2026-01-28 gr-qc hep-thquant-ph

Kimihiro Nomura , Akira Taniguchi , Kazushige Ueda This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-thquant-ph
keywords Leggett-Garginequalityphoton-gravitonconversionmacroscopicrealismnoninvasivemeasurabilitytemporalcorrelationsgravitonmagneticfieldmixingquantumgravity
topics Quantum Gravity
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 asks whether photon-graviton conversion in a background magnetic field can be probed for quantum behaviour through temporal correlations. It treats the photon-graviton pair as a two-level quantum system, so an incident single photon evolves into a superposition of photon and graviton states. Successive projective measurements at three equally spaced times give $K_3 = 1 - [4\sin^2(\sqrt{2}B\Delta t/(2M_P)) - 2\sin^2(\sqrt{2}B\Delta t/M_P)]$, which exceeds the classical bound $K_3 \le 1$ for certain separations and reaches $3/2$ at $\lambda\Delta t = \pi/3$. A violation of this kind would rule out any description satisfying both macroscopic realism and noninvasive measurability, offering a temporal-correlation signature of the quantum nature of gravity. The predicted effect is tiny in laboratory conditions, roughly $3.3\times 10^{-27}$ for a 10 T field over 10 km.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a two-mode harmonic-oscillator Hamiltonian obtained by diagonalising the photon-graviton mixing action. The eigenmodes $\psi_{\pm,k}$ have frequencies $\Omega_{\pm,k} = \sqrt{k^2 \pm \lambda k}$ with mixing strength $\lambda = \sqrt{2}B/M_P$, and the one-photon and one-graviton states are equal superpositions of these two eigenmodes; the relative phase accumulated between them drives coherent conversion. With the measurement convention $Q = +1$ for a photon and $Q = -1$ for a graviton, joint probabilities are built from the survival and conversion probabilities under projective measurement, and their combination $K_3 = C_{12} + C_{23} - C_{13}$ is the quantity whose periodic excursions above unity constitute the claimed violation.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to replace the first projective photon/graviton measurement with a weak or negative (noninvasive) measurement at the same separation $\lambda\Delta t=\pi/3$; if the reconstructed $K_3$ remains at or below 1, the projective-measurement violation is attributable to measurement back-action rather than to nonclassicality of photon-graviton conversion.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that photon-graviton conversion, described quantum-mechanically as coherent oscillation between the one-photon and one-graviton states, generates temporal correlations that violate the Leggett-Garg inequality. For an initial single-photon state the conversion probability is $P_{\gamma\to g}(t) = \sin^2(Bt/(\sqrt{2}M_P))$, and with equal time spacings $\Delta t$ the three-time combination becomes the expression for $K_3$ above. The violation is periodic and maximal at $\lambda\Delta t = \pi/3 + 2\pi n$, where $K_3 = 3/2$, so the coupled photon-graviton dynamics cannot be reproduced by a macrorealistic model with noninvasive measurements. The paper therefore claims that photon-graviton conversion is nonclassical in the Leggett-Garg sense and that observing the violation would provide a new probe of the quantum nature of gravity.

Load-bearing premise

The core premise is that joint probabilities obtained from invasive projective measurements are constrained by the Leggett-Garg inequality, even though that bound was derived under the separate assumption of noninvasive measurability.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the analysis is correct, magnetic-field-mediated photon-graviton conversion exhibits temporal nonclassicality that no macrorealist model with noninvasive measurements can reproduce.
  • Since photons and gravitons are massless, the time separation $\Delta t$ can be replaced by propagation length $\Delta L$, so the predicted violation depends on the distance travelled through the magnetic field.
  • The maximum violation, $K_3 = 3/2$ at $\lambda\Delta t = \pi/3$, pinpoints the exact timing a future experiment would need to target.
  • At 10 T over 10 km the deviation from the classical bound is only $\sim 3.3\times 10^{-27}$, so practical detection would require much larger field-length products or enhanced conversion, for example from squeezed states.
  • Two-time correlations reconstructed from identically prepared photon ensembles, rather than successive measurements on a single particle, are the paper's suggested route to making such a test experimentally feasible.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the violation algebra depends only on sinusoidal two-level conversion probabilities, the same $K_3$ structure should appear in photon-axion or photon-dark-photon mixing, making this a generic feature of oscillating boson conversions rather than something special to gravitons.
  • A weak-measurement version of the same protocol would test whether the violation survives when the first measurement is nearly noninvasive; if it does not, the projective-measurement result would be attributable to measurement back-action rather than to intrinsic nonclassicality.
  • Reading the violation as evidence about gravity presupposes the canonical quantization step; the computed $K_3$ characterises the coupled photon-graviton system as quantized, so by itself it does not separate the graviton's quantumness from the photon's.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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. This manuscript analyzes photon-graviton conversion in a constant magnetic field. Starting from the Einstein-Hilbert and Maxwell actions, the authors isolate a quadratic action, diagonalize it into two oscillators with frequencies Ω±, quantize the system, and derive the single-photon conversion probability Pγ→g(t)=sin²(B t/(√2 M_P)). They then assign a dichotomic observable Q to photon/graviton detection, compute two-time joint probabilities from successive projective measurements, and obtain K3 = 1 − 4 sin²(ω Δt) + 2 sin²(2ω Δt), which exceeds 1 for certain time separations. The paper concludes that this violates the Leggett-Garg inequality and demonstrates the nonclassicality of photon-graviton conversion.

Significance. The paper is self-contained, algebraic, and parameter-free: the mixing strength and conversion probability are derived from standard actions with no fitted constants, and the result reproduces the known classical conversion formula. The explicit K3 expression is a useful illustration of temporal-correlation calculations in a simple two-level system. However, the advertised significance as an LGI test of the quantum nature of gravity hinges on a conceptual step that the manuscript does not justify: the LGI bound applies to noninvasive measurements, while the correlations are computed from projective measurements. As a result, the central claim, if taken as a demonstration of nonclassicality, is not supported by the present calculation.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Eq. (4.2), Fig. 1] The LGI in Eq. (2.2) is derived under macroscopic realism and noninvasive measurability (NIM), but the joint probabilities in Eq. (4.2) are explicitly obtained from projective measurements that project the state onto |A⟩ or |h⟩. A projective measurement is invasive: after the first readout, the subsequent evolution is conditioned on the collapsed state, so the pairwise correlations C12, C23, and C13 are not marginals of a single noninvasive triple distribution. Consequently, K3>1 in Fig. 1 does not by itself demonstrate a violation of the LGI; the same protocol can produce K3>1 in a macrorealist model with measurement back-action (the standard 'clumsiness loophole'). The paper needs a noninvasive measurement prescription (e.g., weak or negative-result measurements) or an explicit calibration of the invasive back-action; without it, the statement that 'any description compatible with both MR and NIM is ruled out' is unsupported.
  2. [§5, ensemble proposal] The ensemble proposal in Sec. 5 does not repair the NIM problem. Reconstructing Pab from many photons prepared in the same initial state still requires two projective measurements per realization in the estimation of C13, and the projective readout at the earlier time disturbs the state in exactly the same way. To be a valid LGI test, the protocol must either implement noninvasive measurements or quantify the disturbance; citing neutrino-oscillation experiments does not circumvent this, because those experiments face the same loophole and address it with additional assumptions that are not provided here.
  3. [Abstract and §5, conclusion] The conclusion that the result 'demonstrates the nonclassicality of photon-graviton conversion' is stronger than what the calculation establishes. The model in Sec. 3.1 begins by quantizing the gravitational perturbations and introducing one-photon and one-graviton states; the derived K3 is the standard two-level Rabi result and would also arise for any oscillating two-level system such as neutrino or kaon oscillations. A measured K3>1 would therefore test macrorealism for the assumed quantum model, but it does not by itself single out the quantum nature of gravity or distinguish it from a generic two-level quantum system. The authors should either temper this claim or specify which alternative classical description of photon-graviton conversion is excluded by the proposed test.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.1, Eq. (3.5)] The mixing parameter is introduced as λk in the action but later written as λ; please state explicitly that the k-dependence drops out after the perpendicular-propagation choice.
  2. [§3.2, Eqs. (3.17)–(3.18)] The approximation ΔΩk ≃ λ requires k ≫ λ; this condition is not stated where the conversion probability is introduced.
  3. [§4, Eq. (4.4) and Fig. 1] The figure axis uses λΔt but Eq. (4.4) is written in terms of B and M_P; defining λ = √2 B/M_P prominently before Eq. (4.4) would improve readability.
  4. [§1, references [38–42]] Since the NIM issue is central, the discussion of photon-based LGI tests should mention which of those experiments use weak or negative-result measurements; this would help the reader see what a NIM-compatible protocol requires.
  5. [§5, final paragraph] The suggestion that an ensemble-based test is 'more practically feasible' is unclear for photons, because a single photon is destroyed by a projective detection; please clarify how two projective measurements would be performed on the same photon in the proposed scheme.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the K3 expression is derived self-contained from the Einstein-Hilbert and Maxwell actions, with no fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. Starting from Eq. (3.1), the paper canonically quantizes the photon-graviton system, diagonalizes the quadratic Lagrangian, obtains the one-particle Hamiltonian (3.12), and derives the conversion probabilities (3.17)-(3.18) directly from time evolution. It then evaluates the two-time correlation functions using standard projective-measurement quantum mechanics, Eqs. (4.1)-(4.3), and obtains K3 in Eq. (4.4) by straightforward algebra. No parameter is fitted to the output, no prior result by the authors is used as a load-bearing premise, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to force the model choice. The only caveats are physical rather than circular: the interpretation of K3 > 1 as an LGI violation requires noninvasive measurability, whereas the protocol uses invasive projective measurements, and the assumed existence of gravitons is the hypothesis under test rather than an input smuggled into the conclusion. These concerns affect correctness and validity, not circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The analysis is analytically self-contained: the only inputs are G, ℏ, c, B, and the standard Einstein-Hilbert and Maxwell actions. No parameters are fitted to data. The central physical assumption is that the gravitational perturbation is a quantum field (graviton), which is precisely the proposition the paper aims to probe.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Gravitational perturbations h_ij are quantized as gravitons, so the metric perturbation becomes a quantum field.
    The two-level superposition of photon and graviton (Eqs. 3.14-3.15) requires promoting h to creation and annihilation operators. This is the hypothesis the paper aims to probe, not an established fact.
  • domain assumption The linearized Einstein-Hilbert plus Maxwell action in a fixed classical magnetic field background correctly describes photon-graviton conversion.
    The quadratic action (3.5) is obtained by expanding (3.1) to second order. This is the standard Gertsenshtein framework and assumes a weak field and constant B.
  • standard math The LGI with K3 = C12 + C23 - C13 <= 1 is the relevant classicality criterion.
    The inequality (2.2) follows from MR and NIM; both are standard but their application here requires NIM, which is not satisfied by the projective measurement protocol.
  • ad hoc to paper Projective measurements at each time define the joint probabilities used in the LGI.
    Eq. (4.2) computes P_ab(γ,g) using state collapse at t_a. Projective measurements are invasive, so the resulting correlations are not constrained by the LGI, which assumes NIM. This assumption is unflagged in Sec. 4.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Violation of the Leggett-Garg inequality in photon-graviton conversion." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I3ATP53M

@misc{pith2026260120436,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Violation of the Leggett-Garg inequality in photon-graviton conversion},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I3ATP53M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.20436}
}
read the original abstract

The Leggett-Garg inequality (LGI) is a temporal analogue of Bell's inequality and provides a quantitative test of the nonclassicality of a system through its violation. We analytically investigate the violation of the LGI in the context of photon-graviton conversion in a magnetic field background, motivated by its potential applications to testing the nonclassicality of gravity. When gravitational perturbations are quantized as gravitons, the conversion of an initial single photon state gives rise to a superposition of photon and graviton states. We show that the temporal correlations obtained from successive projective measurements on the photon-graviton system violate the LGI. Observation of such a violation would provide a novel avenue for probing the quantum nature of gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.20436 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The quantity K3 is plotted as a function of the dimensionless parameter λ ∆t, where λ = √ 2B/MP. The black curve shows the function K3, while the red horizontal line indicates the classical upper bound K3 = 1 imposed by the LGI. Hence, in the regions where the black curve exceeds the red line (K3 > 1), the LGI is violated. For simplicity, we consider equal temporal separations t2 − t1 = t3 − t2 = ∆t. In this case, t… view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

52 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Is a graviton detectable?

    Freeman Dyson. “Is a graviton detectable?” In:Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28 (2013), p. 1330041. 10

    work page 2013

  2. [2]

    The Noise of Gravitons

    Maulik Parikh, Frank Wilczek, and George Zahariade. “The Noise of Gravitons”. In:Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29.14 (2020), p. 2042001. arXiv:2005.07211 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2020

  3. [3]

    Noise and decoherence induced by gravi- tons

    Sugumi Kanno, Jiro Soda, and Junsei Tokuda. “Noise and decoherence induced by gravi- tons”. In:Phys. Rev. D103.4 (2021), p. 044017. arXiv:2007.09838 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    Quantum Mechanics of Gravita- tional Waves

    Maulik Parikh, Frank Wilczek, and George Zahariade. “Quantum Mechanics of Gravita- tional Waves”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.127.8 (2021), p. 081602. arXiv:2010.08205 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  5. [5]

    Signatures of the quantization of gravity at gravitational wave detectors

    Maulik Parikh, Frank Wilczek, and George Zahariade. “Signatures of the quantization of gravity at gravitational wave detectors”. In:Phys. Rev. D104.4 (2021), p. 046021. arXiv: 2010.08208 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2021

  6. [6]

    Indirect detection of gravitons through quantum entanglement

    Sugumi Kanno, Jiro Soda, and Junsei Tokuda. “Indirect detection of gravitons through quantum entanglement”. In:Phys. Rev. D104.8 (2021), p. 083516. arXiv:2103.17053 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Graviton Physics: A Concise Tu- torial on the Quantum Field Theory of Gravitons, Graviton Noise, and Gravitational Decoherence

    Jen-Tsung Hsiang, Hing-Tong Cho, and Bei-Lok Hu. “Graviton Physics: A Concise Tu- torial on the Quantum Field Theory of Gravitons, Graviton Noise, and Gravitational Decoherence”. In:Universe10.8 (2024), p. 306. arXiv:2405.11790 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Probing GHz gravitational waves with graviton–magnon resonance

    Asuka Ito et al. “Probing GHz gravitational waves with graviton–magnon resonance”. In: Eur. Phys. J. C80.3 (2020), p. 179. arXiv:1903.04843 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2020

Show all 52 references
  1. [9]

    Exploring high-frequency gravitational waves with magnons

    Asuka Ito and Jiro Soda. “Exploring high-frequency gravitational waves with magnons”. In:Eur. Phys. J. C83.8 (2023), p. 766. arXiv:2212.04094 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Upper limits on the amplitude of ultra-high-frequency gravitational waves from graviton to photon conversion

    Aldo Ejlli et al. “Upper limits on the amplitude of ultra-high-frequency gravitational waves from graviton to photon conversion”. In:Eur. Phys. J. C79.12 (2019), p. 1032. arXiv: 1908.00232 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Detecting high-frequency gravitational waves with microwave cavities

    Asher Berlin et al. “Detecting high-frequency gravitational waves with microwave cavities”. In:Phys. Rev. D105.11 (2022), p. 116011. arXiv:2112.11465 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Novel Search for High- Frequency Gravitational Waves with Low-Mass Axion Haloscopes

    Valerie Domcke, Camilo Garcia-Cely, and Nicholas L. Rodd. “Novel Search for High- Frequency Gravitational Waves with Low-Mass Axion Haloscopes”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett. 129.4 (2022), p. 041101. arXiv:2202.00695 [hep-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Search for high-frequency gravitational waves with Rydberg atoms

    Sugumi Kanno, Jiro Soda, and Akira Taniguchi. “Search for high-frequency gravitational waves with Rydberg atoms”. In:Eur. Phys. J. C85.1 (2025), p. 31. arXiv:2311.03890 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Challenges and Opportunities of Gravitational Wave Searches above 10 kHz

    Nancy Aggarwal et al. “Challenges and Opportunities of Gravitational Wave Searches above 10 kHz”. In: (Jan. 2025). arXiv:2501.11723 [gr-qc]. 11

    2025

  7. [15]

    Graviton detection and the quanti- zation of gravity

    Daniel Carney, Valerie Domcke, and Nicholas L. Rodd. “Graviton detection and the quanti- zation of gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. D109.4 (2024), p. 044009. arXiv:2308.12988 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Detecting nonclassical primordial gravitational waves with Hanbury-Brown–Twiss interferometry

    Sugumi Kanno and Jiro Soda. “Detecting nonclassical primordial gravitational waves with Hanbury-Brown–Twiss interferometry”. In:Phys. Rev. D99.8 (2019), p. 084010. arXiv: 1810.07604 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Quantum coherence of relic gravitons and Hanbury Brown-Twiss interferometry

    Massimo Giovannini. “Quantum coherence of relic gravitons and Hanbury Brown-Twiss interferometry”. In:Phys. Rev. D99.12 (2019), p. 123507. arXiv:1902.11075 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Stimulated emission of relic gravitons and their super-Poissonian statistics

    Massimo Giovannini. “Stimulated emission of relic gravitons and their super-Poissonian statistics”. In:Mod. Phys. Lett. A34.23 (2019), p. 1950185. arXiv:1903.03796 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Binary gravitational waves as probes of quantum graviton states

    Sugumi Kanno, Jiro Soda, and Akira Taniguchi. “Binary gravitational waves as probes of quantum graviton states”. In: (Oct. 2025). arXiv:2510.23326 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Entanglement and squeezing of gravitational waves

    Thiago Guerreiro. “Entanglement and squeezing of gravitational waves”. In:Phys. Rev. D 112.10 (2025), p. L101904. arXiv:2501.17043 [gr-qc]

    2025

  13. [21]

    Quantum signatures in nonlinear gravitational waves

    Thiago Guerreiro et al. “Quantum signatures in nonlinear gravitational waves”. In:Quan- tum6 (2022), p. 879. arXiv:2111.01779 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Squeezed Quasinormal Modes from Non- linear Gravitational Effects

    Sreenath K. Manikandan and Frank Wilczek. “Squeezed Quasinormal Modes from Non- linear Gravitational Effects”. In: (Aug. 2025). arXiv:2508.03380 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Nonlinear ringdowns as sources and detectors of quantum gravitational waves

    Thiago Guerreiro. “Nonlinear ringdowns as sources and detectors of quantum gravitational waves”. In:Class. Quant. Grav.42.21 (2025), p. 215022. arXiv:2508.07348 [gr-qc]

    2025

  16. [24]

    Quantum nature of gravitational waves from binary black holes

    Sugumi Kanno, Jiro Soda, and Akira Taniguchi. “Quantum nature of gravitational waves from binary black holes”. In: (Aug. 2025). arXiv:2508.17947 [gr-qc]

    2025

  17. [25]

    Squeezed States in Gravity

    Arunima Das et al. “Squeezed States in Gravity”. In: (Dec. 2025). arXiv:2512 . 20601 [gr-qc]

    2025

  18. [26]

    Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conver- sion

    Taiki Ikeda et al. “Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conver- sion”. In:Phys. Rev. D112.10 (2025), p. 103504. arXiv:2507.01609 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  19. [27]

    On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox

    J. S. Bell. “On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox”. In:Physics Physique Fizika1 (1964), pp. 195–200

    1964

  20. [28]

    Experimental Realization of Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell’s Inequalities

    Alain Aspect, Philippe Grangier, and G´ erard Roger. “Experimental Realization of Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedankenexperiment: A New Violation of Bell’s Inequalities”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett.49 (2 July 1982), pp. 91–94.url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.49.91. 12

    1982

  21. [29]

    Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers

    Alain Aspect, Jean Dalibard, and G´ erard Roger. “Experimental Test of Bell’s Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.49 (25 Dec. 1982), pp. 1804–1807. url:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.1804

    1982 doi

  22. [30]

    Violation of Bell inequalities by photons more than 10 km apart

    W. Tittel et al. “Violation of Bell inequalities by photons more than 10 km apart”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett.81 (1998), pp. 3563–3566. arXiv:quant-ph/9806043

    1998 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions

    Gregor Weihs et al. “Violation of Bell’s inequality under strict Einstein locality conditions”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.81 (1998), pp. 5039–5043. arXiv:quant-ph/9810080

    1998 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Experimental violation of a Bell’s inequality with efficient detection

    M. A. Rowe et al. “Experimental violation of a Bell’s inequality with efficient detection”. In:Nature409.6822 (2001), pp. 791–794

    2001

  25. [33]

    Space-like Separation in a Bell Test assuming Gravitationally Induced Collapses

    D. Salart et al. “Space-like Separation in a Bell Test assuming Gravitationally Induced Collapses”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.100 (2008), p. 220404. arXiv:0803.2425 [quant-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism: Is the flux there when nobody looks?

    A. J. Leggett and Anupam Garg. “Quantum mechanics versus macroscopic realism: Is the flux there when nobody looks?” In:Phys. Rev. Lett.54 (1985), pp. 857–860

    1985

  27. [35]

    Leggett–Garg inequalities

    Clive Emary, Neill Lambert, and Franco Nori. “Leggett–Garg inequalities”. In:Rept. Prog. Phys.77.1 (2013), p. 016001. arXiv:1304.5133 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Experimental violation of a Bell’s inequality in time with weak measurement

    Agustin Palacios-Laloy et al. “Experimental violation of a Bell’s inequality in time with weak measurement”. In:Nature Phys.6.6 (2010), pp. 442–447. arXiv:1005.3435 [quant-ph]

    2010 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Partial-Measurement Backaction and Nonclassical Weak Values in a Superconducting Circuit

    J. P. Groen et al. “Partial-Measurement Backaction and Nonclassical Weak Values in a Superconducting Circuit”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.111.9 (2013), p. 090506. arXiv:1302.5147 [cond-mat.mes-hall]

    2013 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Violation of the Leggett–Garg inequality with weak measurements of photons

    M. E. Goggin et al. “Violation of the Leggett–Garg inequality with weak measurements of photons”. In:Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci.108.4 (2011), pp. 1256–1261. arXiv:0907 . 1679 [quant-ph]

    2011

  31. [39]

    Experimental violation of the Leggett-Garg inequality under decoher- ence

    Jin-Shi Xu et al. “Experimental violation of the Leggett-Garg inequality under decoher- ence”. In: (Apr. 2012). arXiv:0907.0176 [quant-ph]

    2012 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Experimental Violation of Two-Party Leggett-Garg Inequalities with Semi-weak Measurements

    J. Dressel et al. “Experimental Violation of Two-Party Leggett-Garg Inequalities with Semi-weak Measurements”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.106 (2011), p. 040402. arXiv:1101.4917 [quant-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Violation of Leggett-Garg inequalities in quantum measurements with variable resolution and back-action

    Yutaro Suzuki, Masataka Iinuma, and Holger F. Hofmann. “Violation of Leggett-Garg inequalities in quantum measurements with variable resolution and back-action”. In:New J. Phys.14 (2012), p. 103022. arXiv:1206.6954 [quant-ph]. 13

    2012 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Experimental violation of the Leggett-Garg inequality using the polarization of classical light

    Wenlei Zhang et al. “Experimental violation of the Leggett-Garg inequality using the polarization of classical light”. In:Phys. Rev. A104.4 (2021), p. 043711. arXiv:2012.03940 [quant-ph]

    2021 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Violation of a Leggett-Garg Inequality Using Ideal Negative Measurements in Neutron Interferometry

    Elisabeth Kreuzgruber et al. “Violation of a Leggett-Garg Inequality Using Ideal Negative Measurements in Neutron Interferometry”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.132.26 (2024), p. 260201. arXiv:2307.04409 [quant-ph]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Leggett-Garg inequalities for testing quantumness of gravity

    Akira Matsumura, Yasusada Nambu, and Kazuhiro Yamamoto. “Leggett-Garg inequalities for testing quantumness of gravity”. In:Phys. Rev. A106.1 (2022), p. 012214. arXiv: 2111.14064 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Wave resonance of light and gravitional waves

    ME Gertsenshtein. “Wave resonance of light and gravitional waves”. In:Sov. Phys. JETP 14 (1962), p. 84

    1962

  38. [46]

    Mixing of the Photon with Low Mass Particles

    Georg Raffelt and Leo Stodolsky. “Mixing of the Photon with Low Mass Particles”. In: Phys. Rev. D37 (1988), p. 1237

    1988

  39. [47]

    Probing the Leggett-Garg Inequality for Oscillating Neutral Kaons and Neutrinos

    D. Gangopadhyay, D. Home, and A. Sinha Roy. “Probing the Leggett-Garg Inequality for Oscillating Neutral Kaons and Neutrinos”. In:Phys. Rev. A88.2 (2013), p. 022115. arXiv: 1304.2761 [quant-ph]

    2013 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Violation of the Leggett-Garg Inequality in Neutrino Oscillations

    J. A. Formaggio et al. “Violation of the Leggett-Garg Inequality in Neutrino Oscillations”. In:Phys. Rev. Lett.117.5 (2016), p. 050402. arXiv:1602.00041 [quant-ph]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Three-flavoured neutrino oscillations and the Leggett–Garg inequality

    Debashis Gangopadhyay and Animesh Sinha Roy. “Three-flavoured neutrino oscillations and the Leggett–Garg inequality”. In:Eur. Phys. J. C77.4 (2017), p. 260. arXiv:1702. 04646 [quant-ph]

    2017

  42. [50]

    Leggett-Garg inequalities in the quantum field theory of neutrino oscillations

    Massimo Blasone et al. “Leggett-Garg inequalities in the quantum field theory of neutrino oscillations”. In:Phys. Rev. A108.3 (2023), p. 032210. arXiv:2111.09979 [quant-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    New test of neutrino oscillation coherence with Leggett–Garg inequality

    Xing-Zhi Wang and Bo-Qiang Ma. “New test of neutrino oscillation coherence with Leggett–Garg inequality”. In:Eur. Phys. J. C82.2 (2022), p. 133. arXiv:2201.10597 [quant-ph]

    2022 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Conversion of Gravitons into Dark Photons in Cosmological Dark Magnetic Fields

    Emi Masaki and Jiro Soda. “Conversion of Gravitons into Dark Photons in Cosmological Dark Magnetic Fields”. In:Phys. Rev. D98.2 (2018), p. 023540. arXiv:1804 . 00458 [astro-ph.CO]. 14

    2018

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.