arxiv: 2604.22593 · v1 · submitted 2026-04-24 · 🪐 quant-ph · cond-mat.mes-hall

Recognition: unknown

Stability Thresholds for Gravitationally Induced Entanglement in Shielded Setups

Jan Bulling , Marit O. E. Steiner , Julen S. Pedernales , Martin B. Plenio

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-08 11:58 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph cond-mat.mes-hall

keywords gravitationally induced entanglementCasimir interactionsmagnetic dipole interactionssuperconducting shielddecoherencevibrational modesstability thresholdsquantum gravity tests

0 comments

The pith

Residual Casimir and magnetic interactions with shields can severely limit or mimic gravitationally induced entanglement signals.

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

Proposed tests for gravitationally induced entanglement place a conducting or superconducting shield between two massive particles to suppress electromagnetic forces. However, residual Casimir and magnetic-dipole interactions with the shield still imprint large phases on the particles. Small positional and orientational fluctuations in the setup convert these phases into decoherence, reducing the detectable entanglement. Quantum mechanical treatment of the shield's vibrational modes shows that thermal vibrations create persistent correlations and can even generate particle-particle entanglement that mimics the gravitational effect. The work derives specific thresholds for tolerable fluctuations and suggests mitigation via geometry optimization and shield cooling.

Core claim

In setups using shields to isolate gravitational interactions for entanglement generation, both Casimir and magnetic-dipole forces between particles and the shield lead to phase imprints that run-to-run fluctuations turn into effective decoherence. Magnetic interactions are especially problematic for superconducting particles. Treating shield vibrations quantum-mechanically reveals that thermal excitations produce particle-shield correlations and can mediate particle-particle entanglement indistinguishable from a gravitational signal. Quantitative thresholds on positional and orientational fluctuations of the shield, traps, and detectors are required to preserve a genuine GIE signature.

What carries the argument

The phase accumulation from residual Casimir and magnetic-dipole interactions, converted to effective decoherence by positional and orientational fluctuations of setup elements, together with the quantum vibrational modes of the shield that generate persistent correlations and mimicking entanglement.

If this is right

Both Casimir and magnetic-dipole interactions can severely limit GIE tests by imprinting large phases.
Magnetic interactions between the particles and a superconducting shield constitute a major noise source, especially for levitated superconducting particles.
Thermal vibrations generate persistent particle-shield correlations and can even mediate particle-particle entanglement that mimics a gravitational signal.
Quantitative thresholds on the maximum tolerable positional and orientational fluctuations of the setup elements are required to observe entanglement.
Geometry optimization and shield cooling can mitigate the effects and preserve a genuine GIE signature.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

These thresholds indicate that experimental designs relying on levitated superconducting particles will require substantially tighter positional control than many current proposals assume.
Verification protocols for claimed GIE will need additional checks to rule out vibration-mediated entanglement mimics, such as temperature-dependent measurements.
The analysis suggests that cooling the shield to millikelvin temperatures could become a practical requirement for future tests aiming at genuine gravitational signals.
Similar stability considerations may apply when extending shielded setups to other proposed quantum tests of gravity.

Load-bearing premise

The models of residual Casimir and magnetic-dipole forces plus the quantum treatment of shield vibrations accurately capture the dominant decoherence and mimicking mechanisms without significant unaccounted contributions from other sources.

What would settle it

An experiment that varies controlled positional fluctuations or shield temperature while measuring bipartite entanglement visibility and finds that the visibility remains high only when fluctuations stay below the calculated thresholds, or shows no extra entanglement when vibrations are suppressed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.22593 by Jan Bulling, Julen S. Pedernales, Marit O. E. Steiner, Martin B. Plenio.

**Figure 1.** Figure 1: FIG. 1 view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2 view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Figure 3: FIG. 3 view at source ↗

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4 view at source ↗

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5 view at source ↗

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: FIG. 6 view at source ↗

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7 view at source ↗

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8 view at source ↗

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: FIG. 9 view at source ↗

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: FIG. 10 view at source ↗

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: FIG. 11 view at source ↗

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: FIG. 12 view at source ↗

**Figure 13.** Figure 13: FIG. 13 view at source ↗

**Figure 14.** Figure 14: FIG. 14 view at source ↗

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: FIG. 15 view at source ↗

**Figure 16.** Figure 16: FIG. 16 view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Proposed experiments for gravitationally induced entanglement (GIE) typically suppress direct electromagnetic interactions between two massive particles by inserting a conducting Faraday shield. For superconducting particles, their large diamagnetism requires additional magnetic shielding to screen magnetic dipolar interactions. Here, we analyze the effect of residual particle-shield interactions and show that both Casimir and magnetic-dipole interactions can severely limit GIE tests by imprinting large phases. We quantify how run-to-run positional and orientational fluctuations of the setup elements, including the shield, trapping potentials, and detectors, convert these phases into effective decoherence, strongly reducing the detectable bipartite entanglement. In particular, we show that magnetic interactions between the particles and a superconducting shield constitute a major noise source, especially relevant for levitated superconducting particles. Treating the vibrational modes of the shield quantum mechanically, we further find that thermal vibrations generate persistent particle-shield correlations and can even mediate particle-particle entanglement that can mimic a gravitational signal. Finally, we derive quantitative thresholds on the maximum tolerable positional and orientational fluctuations of the setup elements required to observe entanglement, and propose mitigation strategies including geometry optimization and shield cooling to preserve a genuine GIE signature.

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.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

Paper gives concrete stability thresholds for GIE setups and flags shield vibrations as a source of mimicking entanglement, with the main caveat being whether the Casimir and magnetic models capture all dominant effects.

read the letter

This paper gives concrete stability thresholds for setups aiming to detect gravitationally induced entanglement using shielded massive particles. The key points are that residual Casimir and magnetic-dipole interactions can imprint large phases, which fluctuations convert to decoherence, and that thermal vibrations of the superconducting shield can mediate particle-particle entanglement that mimics the gravitational effect. The analysis is new in its detailed treatment of magnetic interactions with the shield for superconducting cases and in the quantum mechanical handling of shield modes leading to mimicking signals. It does a good job quantifying the run-to-run fluctuation tolerances and suggesting practical mitigations such as geometry optimization and cooling the shield. This kind of work helps bridge theory and experiment by turning general concerns into specific numbers. The soft spots are mainly around the modeling assumptions. The force laws and perturbative calculations seem standard, but the paper's conclusions on the severity of these effects depend on whether other sources like patch potentials or flux pinning are negligible. The mimicking entanglement is a notable finding, but it would be stronger with a discussion of how to experimentally separate it from true GIE. Since the full derivations are not in the abstract, the numerical thresholds need checking for consistency with the underlying equations. This is for experimental groups and theorists working on quantum gravity tests with levitated objects. A reader in that area gets direct value from the thresholds and noise analysis. It is solid enough to deserve a serious referee, as the issues raised are central to the feasibility of these experiments. I would recommend putting it through peer review rather than desk rejecting it.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript analyzes residual Casimir and magnetic-dipole interactions between superconducting particles and a conducting Faraday shield in proposed gravitationally induced entanglement (GIE) experiments. It shows that these interactions imprint large phases that, when combined with run-to-run positional and orientational fluctuations of the particles, shield, traps, and detectors, produce effective decoherence that reduces detectable bipartite entanglement. Treating shield vibrational modes quantum-mechanically, the work further demonstrates that thermal vibrations generate persistent particle-shield correlations and can mediate particle-particle entanglement that mimics a gravitational signal. Quantitative thresholds on maximum tolerable fluctuations are derived, together with mitigation strategies such as geometry optimization and shield cooling.

Significance. If the modeling holds, the paper supplies concrete, actionable stability requirements for shielded GIE setups—particularly relevant for levitated superconducting particles—by identifying electromagnetic and vibrational noise channels that can both suppress and falsely mimic the target signal. This directly informs experimental design choices needed to isolate genuine gravitational entanglement.

major comments (2)

[Magnetic-interaction phase calculation] The central claim that magnetic interactions with the superconducting shield constitute a major noise source rests on the perturbative phase calculation for the dipole-shield interaction; the manuscript should explicitly bound the contribution of non-ideal diamagnetic effects (e.g., flux pinning or imperfect screening) and show that they remain sub-dominant to the ideal term used for the threshold derivation.
[Quantum shield-vibration analysis] In the quantum treatment of shield vibrations, the demonstration that thermal modes can mediate mimicking particle-particle entanglement requires a direct, quantitative comparison of the induced entanglement rate (or concurrence) to the gravitational phase accumulation rate under the same parameters; without this, the mimicking claim remains qualitative.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract states that thresholds are derived but does not quote their order of magnitude or the dominant scaling; adding one sentence with the leading numerical result would improve accessibility.
[Notation and definitions] Notation for positional and orientational fluctuation amplitudes should be unified across the force, phase, and decoherence sections to avoid reader confusion.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments point by point below, and have made revisions to incorporate the suggested improvements where necessary.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [Magnetic-interaction phase calculation] The central claim that magnetic interactions with the superconducting shield constitute a major noise source rests on the perturbative phase calculation for the dipole-shield interaction; the manuscript should explicitly bound the contribution of non-ideal diamagnetic effects (e.g., flux pinning or imperfect screening) and show that they remain sub-dominant to the ideal term used for the threshold derivation.

Authors: We agree that bounding non-ideal diamagnetic effects is important for the robustness of our conclusions. Our current analysis assumes an ideal diamagnetic response for the superconducting particles and shield. In the revised version, we will add a new subsection that estimates the contributions from flux pinning and imperfect screening. For the parameter regimes relevant to levitated superconducting particles, we show that these effects can be made sub-dominant by appropriate cooling and material choice, remaining below the ideal magnetic dipole interaction term by at least an order of magnitude. This will be supported by order-of-magnitude estimates based on typical pinning energies and screening efficiencies reported in the literature. revision: yes
Referee: [Quantum shield-vibration analysis] In the quantum treatment of shield vibrations, the demonstration that thermal modes can mediate mimicking particle-particle entanglement requires a direct, quantitative comparison of the induced entanglement rate (or concurrence) to the gravitational phase accumulation rate under the same parameters; without this, the mimicking claim remains qualitative.

Authors: We concur that a quantitative comparison is necessary to fully substantiate the mimicking claim. While the manuscript demonstrates the existence of vibration-mediated entanglement, it does not provide a direct rate comparison. We will revise the relevant section to include a calculation of the concurrence growth rate due to thermal shield modes and compare it explicitly to the gravitational phase accumulation rate, using the same experimental parameters (e.g., particle mass, separation, temperature). This will clarify the conditions under which the mimicking effect could be comparable to or exceed the gravitational signal, thereby strengthening the analysis of stability thresholds. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation is self-contained first-principles modeling

full rationale

The paper derives stability thresholds from explicit calculations of Casimir and magnetic-dipole phases, perturbative decoherence due to positional/orientational fluctuations, and quantum harmonic treatment of shield vibrational modes. These steps use standard electromagnetic force laws and quantum mechanics without reducing any claimed prediction or threshold to a fitted input, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation chain. The quantitative limits on fluctuations emerge directly from the phase-imprinting and correlation models, which remain externally falsifiable and independent of the GIE target signal.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based solely on the abstract, the central claims rest on standard domain assumptions about interaction models and quantum treatment of vibrations; no free parameters or invented entities are explicitly introduced.

axioms (2)

domain assumption Residual Casimir and magnetic-dipole interactions dominate the unwanted phases in shielded setups.
Invoked to quantify how these forces limit detectable GIE.
domain assumption Quantum mechanical treatment of shield vibrational modes is required to capture particle-shield correlations and mediated entanglement.
Used to show that thermal vibrations can mimic gravitational signals.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 9741 in / 1421 out tokens · 123677 ms · 2026-05-08T11:58:53.542683+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

85 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages

[1]

DeWitt-Morette and D

C. DeWitt-Morette and D. Rickles,The role of grav- itation in physics: Report from the 1957 Chapel Hill Conference(Edition Open Access, 2011)

1957
[2]

N. H. Lindner and A. Peres, Testing quantum super- positions of the gravitational field with bose-einstein condensates, Physical Review A71, 024101 (2005)

2005
[3]

A noise inequality for classical forces

D. Kafri and J. M. Taylor, A noise inequality for clas- sical forces (2013), arXiv:1311.4558 [quant-ph]

work page Pith review arXiv 2013
[4]

Christodoulou, A

M. Christodoulou, A. Di Biagio, M. Aspelmeyer, ˇC. Brukner, C. Rovelli, and R. Howl, Locally me- diated entanglement in linearized quantum gravity, Physical Review Letters130, 100202 (2023)

2023
[5]

M. B. Plenio and S. Virmani, An introduction to entanglement measures, Quantum Information and Computation7, 1 (2007)

2007
[6]

Deli´ c, M

U. Deli´ c, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V. Vuleti´ c, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, Cooling of a levitated nanoparticle to the motional quantum ground state, Science367, 892 (2020)

2020
[7]

Gonzalez-Ballestero, M

C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, M. Aspelmeyer, L. Novotny, R. Quidant, and O. Romero-Isart, Levitodynamics: Levitation and control of microscopic objects in vac- uum, Science374, 168 (2021)

2021
[8]

Kamba and K

M. Kamba and K. Aikawa, Revealing the velocity uncertainties of a levitated particle in the quantum ground state, Physical Review Letters131, 183602 (2023)

2023
[9]

Piotrowski, D

J. Piotrowski, D. Windey, J. Vijayan, C. Gonzalez- Ballestero, A. de los R´ ıos Sommer, N. Meyer, R. Quidant, O. Romero-Isart, R. Reimann, and L. Novotny, Simultaneous ground-state cooling of two mechanical modes of a levitated nanoparticle, Nature Physics19, 1009 (2023)

2023
[10]

Ranfagni, K

A. Ranfagni, K. Børkje, F. Marino, and F. Marin, Two-dimensional quantum motion of a levitated nanosphere, Physical Review Research4, 033051 (2022)

2022
[11]

Dania, O

L. Dania, O. S. Kremer, J. Piotrowski, D. Candoli, J. Vijayan, O. Romero-Isart, C. Gonzalez-Ballestero, L. Novotny, and M. Frimmer, High-purity quantum optomechanics at room temperature, Nature Physics 21, 1603 (2025)

2025
[12]

Magrini, P

L. Magrini, P. Rosenzweig, C. Bach, A. Deutschmann- Olek, S. G. Hofer, S. Hong, N. Kiesel, A. Kugi, and M. Aspelmeyer, Real-time optimal quantum control of mechanical motion at room temperature, Nature 19 595, 373 (2021)

2021
[13]

Tebbenjohanns, M

F. Tebbenjohanns, M. L. Mattana, M. Rossi, M. Frim- mer, and L. Novotny, Quantum control of a nanopar- ticle optically levitated in cryogenic free space, Nature 595, 378 (2021)

2021
[14]

Kamba, N

M. Kamba, N. Hara, and K. Aikawa, Quantum squeezing of a levitated nanomechanical oscillator, Science389, 1225 (2025)

2025
[15]

Troyer, F

S. Troyer, F. Fechtel, L. Hummer, H. Rudolph, B. A. Stickler, U. Deli´ c, and M. Arndt, Quantum ground- state cooling of two librational modes of a nanorotor, Nature Physics22, 584– (2026)

2026
[16]

Westphal, H

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

2021
[17]

J. G. Lee, E. G. Adelberger, T. S. Cook, S. M. Fleis- cher, and B. R. Heckel, New test of the gravitational 1/r2 law at separations down to 52µm, Physical Re- view Letters124, 101101 (2020)

2020
[18]

H. Pino, J. Prat-Camps, K. Sinha, B. P. Venkatesh, and O. Romero-Isart, On-chip quantum interference of a superconducting microsphere, Quantum Science and Technology3, 025001 (2018)

2018
[19]

L. Lami, J. S. Pedernales, and M. B. Plenio, Test- ing the quantumness of gravity without entanglement, Phys. Rev. X14, 021022 (2024)

2024
[20]

K. Li, Y. Ling, and Z. Yu, Gravity induced entan- glement of multiple massive particles with large spin, Classical and Quantum Gravity42, 225003 (2025)

2025
[21]

R. Howl, R. Penrose, and I. Fuentes, Exploring the unification of quantum theory and general relativ- ity with a bose–einstein condensate, New Journal of Physics21, 043047 (2019)

2019
[22]

R. Howl, V. Vedral, D. Naik, M. Christodoulou, C. Rovelli, and A. Iyer, Non-gaussianity as a signa- ture of a quantum theory of gravity, PRX Quantum 2, 010325 (2021)

2021
[23]

Oppenheim, C

J. Oppenheim, C. Sparaciari, B. ˇSoda, and Z. Weller- Davies, Gravitationally induced decoherence vs space- time diffusion: testing the quantum nature of gravity, Nature Communications14, 7910 (2023)

2023
[24]

S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroˇ s, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn, Spin entanglement wit- ness for quantum gravity, Physical Review Letters 119, 240401 (2017)

2017
[25]

J. S. Pedernales, K. Streltsov, and M. B. Plenio, En- hancing Gravitational Interaction between Quantum Systems by a Massive Mediator, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 110401 (2022)

2022
[26]

J. S. Pedernales and M. B. Plenio, On the origin of force sensitivity in tests of quantum gravity with de- localised mechanical systems, Contemporary Physics 64, 147 (2023)

2023
[27]

T. B. Lanta˜ no, L. Petruzziello, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Angular momentum entanglement me- diated by general relativistic frame dragging, Quan- tum10, 2042 (2025)

2042
[28]

Kaltenbaek, G

R. Kaltenbaek, G. Hechenblaikner, N. Kiesel, O. Romero-Isart, K. C. Schwab, U. Johann, and M. Aspelmeyer, Macroscopic quantum resonators (maqro): Testing quantum and gravitational physics with massive mechanical resonators, Experimental Astronomy34, 123 (2012)

2012
[29]

Shiomatsu, Y

Y. Shiomatsu, Y. Kaku, A. Matsumura, and T. Fu- jita, Boosting gravity-induced entanglement through parametric resonance (2025), arXiv:2511.09169

work page arXiv 2025
[30]

Petruzziello, T

L. Petruzziello, T. B. Lanta˜ no Pinto, S. F. Huelga, and M. B. Plenio, Experimental witness for gen- eral relativistic effects in quantum mechanics, Inter- national Journal of Modern Physics D34, 2544026 (2025)

2025
[31]

Carney, P

D. Carney, P. C. E. Stamp, and J. M. Taylor, Tabletop experiments for quantum gravity: a user’s manual, Classical and Quantum Gravity36, 034001 (2019)

2019
[32]

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

2022
[33]

Schm¨ ole, M

J. Schm¨ ole, M. Dragosits, H. Hepach, and M. As- pelmeyer, A micromechanical proof-of-principle ex- periment for measuring the gravitational force of mil- ligram masses, Classical and Quantum Gravity33, 125031 (2016)

2016
[34]

T. W. v. d. Kamp, R. J. Marshman, S. Bose, and A. Mazumdar, Quantum Gravity Witness via Entan- glement of Masses: Casimir Screening, Physical Re- view A102, 062807 (2020)

2020
[35]

Schut, A

M. Schut, A. Grinin, A. Dana, S. Bose, A. Geraci, and A. Mazumdar, Relaxation of experimental parame- ters in a Quantum-Gravity Induced Entanglement of Masses Protocol using electromagnetic screening, Physical Review Research5, 043170 (2023)

2023
[36]

Pavlou, M

C. Pavlou, M. G. Pastore Carbone, A. C. Manikas, G. Trakakis, C. Koral, G. Papari, A. Andreone, and C. Galiotis, Effective EMI shielding behaviour of thin graphene/PMMA nanolaminates in the THz range, Nature Communications12, 4655 (2021)

2021
[37]

H. B. G. Casimir, On the attraction between two per- fectly conducting plates, Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wet. 51, 793 (1948)

1948
[38]

Roberts, Optical Properties of Copper, Phys

S. Roberts, Optical Properties of Copper, Phys. Rev. 118, 1509 (1960)

1960
[39]

Bulgac, P

A. Bulgac, P. Magierski, and A. Wirzba, Scalar Casimir effect between Dirichlet spheres or a plate and a sphere, Phys. Rev. D73, 025007 (2006)

2006
[40]

I. G. Pirozhenko and M. Bordag, Casimir repulsion in sphere-plate geometry, Phys. Rev. D87, 085031 (2013)

2013
[41]

Lifshitz and M

E. Lifshitz and M. Hamermesh, 26 - The theory of molecular attractive forces between solids - Reprinted from Soviet Physics JETP 2, Part 1, 73, 1956., inPer- spectives in Theoretical Physics, edited by L. P. Pitaevski (Pergamon, Amsterdam, 1992) pp. 329–349

1956
[42]

Bordag, G

M. Bordag, G. L. Klimchitskaya, U. Mohideen, and V. M. Mostepanenko,Advances in the Casimir Ef- fect(Oxford University Press, 2009)

2009
[43]

W. M. Haynes,Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, 97th ed. (CRC Press, 2017)

2017
[44]

Naito, T

T. Naito, T. Suzuki, and Y. Ikezoe, Diamagnetic lev- itation of water realized with a simple device consist- ing of ordinary permanent magnets, Applied Physics Letters125(2024)

2024
[45]

J.-F. Hsu, P. Ji, C. W. Lewandowski, and B. D’Urso, Cooling the Motion of Diamond Nanocrystals in a Magneto-Gravitational Trap in High Vacuum, Sci. Rep.6, 30125 (2016)

2016
[46]

Jiles,Introduction to Magnetism and Mag- netic Materials, 3rd ed

D. Jiles,Introduction to Magnetism and Mag- netic Materials, 3rd ed. (CRC Press, 2015)

2015
[47]

B. W. Maxfield and W. L. McLean, Superconducting penetration depth of niobium, Phys. Rev.139, A1515 (1965)

1965
[48]

Priel, A

N. Priel, A. Fieguth, C. P. Blakemore, E. Hough, A. Kawasaki, D. Martin, G. Venugopalan, and G. Gratta, Dipole moment background measurement and suppression for levitated charge sensors, Science 20 Advances8, eabo2361 (2022)

2022
[49]

A. D. Rider, D. C. Moore, C. P. Blakemore, M. Louis, M. Lu, and G. Gratta, Search for Screened Interac- tions Associated with Dark Energy below the 100µm Length Scale, Physical Review Letters117, 101101 (2016)

2016
[50]

N. A. Robertson,Kelvin Probe Measurements of the Patch Effect, Tech. Rep. LIGO - G070481-00-R (LIGO/Virgo Collaborations Meeting, 2007)

2007
[51]

J. L. Garrett, J. Kim, and J. N. Munday, Measuring the effect of electrostatic patch potentials in Casimir force experiments, Phys. Rev. Res.2, 023355 (2020)

2020
[52]

Harms, F

J. Harms, F. Acernese, F. Barone, I. Bartos, M. Beker, J. F. J. van den Brand, N. Christensen, M. Cough- lin, R. DeSalvo, S. Dorsher, J. Heise, S. Kandhasamy, V. Mandic, S. M´ arka, G. Mueller, L. Naticchioni, T. O’Keefe, D. S. Rabeling, A. Sajeva, T. Trancynger, and V. Wand, Characterization of the seismic environ- ment at the sanford underground laborat...

2010
[53]

Armano, H

M. Armano, H. Audley, J. Baird, P. Binetruy, M. Born, D. Bortoluzzi, E. Castelli, A. Cavalleri, A. Cesarini, V. Chiavegato, A. Cruise, D. Dal Bosco, K. Danzmann, M. De Deus Silva, I. Diepholz, G. Dixon, R. Dolesi, L. Ferraioli, V. Ferroni, E. Fitzsimons, M. Freschi, L. Gesa, D. Giardini, F. Gibert, R. Giusteri, C. Grimani, J. Grzymisch, I. Harrison, M. Ha...

2024
[54]

M. B. Plenio, Logarithmic Negativity: A Full Entan- glement Monotone That is not Convex, Phys. Rev. Lett.95, 090503 (2005)

2005
[55]

Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods, 1st ed

A. Serafini,Quantum Continuous Variables: A Primer of Theoretical Methods, 1st ed. (CRC Press, 2017)

2017
[56]

Krisnanda, G

T. Krisnanda, G. Y. Tham, M. Paternostro, and T. Paterek, Observable quantum entanglement due to gravity, npj Quantum Information6, 12 (2020)

2020
[57]

C. U. Lei, A. J. Weinstein, J. Suh, E. E. Wollman, A. Kronwald, F. Marquardt, A. A. Clerk, and K. C. Schwab, Quantum nondemolition measurement of a quantum squeezed state beyond the 3 db limit, Phys. Rev. Lett.117, 100801 (2016)

2016
[58]

Marocco, D

G. Marocco, D. C. Moore, and D. Carney, Three-dimensional squeezing of optically levitated nanospheres (2026), arXiv:2601.22283 [quant-ph]

work page arXiv 2026
[59]

Zaheer, S

S. Zaheer, S. J. Rahi, T. Emig, and R. L. Jaffe, Casimir potential of a compact object enclosed by a spherical cavity, Phys. Rev. A82, 052507 (2010)

2010
[60]

Graham, A

N. Graham, A. Shpunt, T. Emig, S. J. Rahi, R. L. Jaffe, and M. Kardar, Electromagnetic Casimir forces of parabolic cylinder and knife-edge geometries, Phys. Rev. D83, 125007 (2011)

2011
[61]

Martinetz, K

L. Martinetz, K. Hornberger, and B. A. Stickler, Surface-Induced Decoherence and Heating of Charged Particles, PRX Quantum3, 030327 (2022)

2022
[62]

Berman and D

R. Berman and D. K. C. Macdonald, The thermal and electrical conductivity of copper at low temperatures, Proceedings of the Royal Society A211, 122 (1952)

1952
[63]

G. A. E. Vandenbosch, The basic concepts determin- ing electromagnetic shielding, American Journal of Physics90, 672 (2022)

2022
[64]

T. Emig, N. Graham, R. L. Jaffe, and M. Kardar, Casimir Forces between Arbitrary Compact Objects, Phys. Rev. Lett.99, 170403 (2007)

2007
[65]

H. B. G. Casimir and D. Polder, The Influence of Re- tardation on the London-van der Waals Forces, Phys. Rev.73, 360 (1948)

1948
[66]

Emig, Fluctuation-induced quantum interactions between compact objects and a plane mirror, Jour- nal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2008, P04007 (2008)

T. Emig, Fluctuation-induced quantum interactions between compact objects and a plane mirror, Jour- nal of Statistical Mechanics: Theory and Experiment 2008, P04007 (2008)

2008
[67]

S. S. Rao,Vibration of Continuous Systems, 2nd ed. (John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 2019)

2019
[68]

Kerker, R

N. Kerker, R. R¨ opke, L. M. Steinert, A. Pooch, and A. Stibor, Quantum decoherence by Coulomb inter- action, New Journal of Physics22, 063039 (2020)

2020
[69]

M. A. Schlosshauer,Decoherence(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2010)

2010
[70]

M. O. E. Steiner, J. S. Pedernales, and M. B. Ple- nio, Optically Hyperpolarized Materials for Levitated Optomechanics, Quantum9, 1928 (2025). Appendix A: Size and thickness of the shield

1928
[71]

Thickness estimations The shield is used to screen direct non-gravitational interactions between the two particles. It can either be a conductive Faraday shield to screen electrostatic- and Casimir interactions, which impose dominant noise in GIE experiments with silica nanospheres or a superconducting Meissner shield for dominant magnetic-dipole interact...
[72]

If a fractionκ∈[0,1] of the electromagnetic modes can leak around the edges of the shield and re-establish a direct non-gravitational coupling

Lateral size estimations The lateral dimensionr s of the shield can be estimated by considering fringe fields and diffraction around the shield. If a fractionκ∈[0,1] of the electromagnetic modes can leak around the edges of the shield and re-establish a direct non-gravitational coupling. Geometric considerations yield that for a potentialV∼L −d 22 (d= 1 f...
[73]

Gravitational interaction The gravitational interaction between two particles is given by ˆHGravity =− GMAMB ˆdAB ,(B1) whereGis the gravitational constant,M A/B are the masses of the two particles, and ˆdAB is the canonically quantized distance between them, defined as ˆdAB = q (ˆx′ A −ˆx′ B)2 + (ˆy′ A −ˆy′ B)2.(B2) Here, ˆx′ A/B and ˆy′ A/B are the abso...
[74]

Casimir interactions Closed-form expressions for this potential across all distances are not known, however approximations in the two limiting regimes for small and large distances exists. For small surface-to-surface separationsL−R−ds 2 ≪R, the interaction can be described by the proximity-force-approximation (PFA) [39, 40] VPFA =− ℏcπ3R 720(L−R−d s/2)2 ...
[75]

with a superconducting shield is given by ˆHmag.Dipole =− |⃗ m|2 µ0 32π| ˆd|3 1 + cos2 ϕ (B14) with the magnetic-dipole moment⃗ m= 4πR 3χV ⃗Bext./(3µ0) and vacuum permeabilityµ 0

Magnetic-dipole interactions The interaction Hamiltonian between a sphere of radiusRwith magnetic volume susceptibilityχ V in the presence of an external field ⃗Bext. with a superconducting shield is given by ˆHmag.Dipole =− |⃗ m|2 µ0 32π| ˆd|3 1 + cos2 ϕ (B14) with the magnetic-dipole moment⃗ m= 4πR 3χV ⃗Bext./(3µ0) and vacuum permeabilityµ 0. The angleϕ...
[76]

Dynamical shield The shapes of the vibrational eigenmodes, labeled by integers (k, l) withk∈[1,∞) andl∈[0,∞), can be expressed as [67] ukl(r, ϑ, t) = Jl(βkr)− Jl(βkrs) Il(βkrs) Il(βkr) cos(lϑ) sin(ωklt),(B19) whereβ k := ˜rk/rs, and the eigenfrequencies are given by ωkl = ˜r2 k ds r2s s E 12ρ(1−ν 2) .(B20) Here,Eis the Young’s modulus (withE Cu = 110 GPa ...
[77]

Time evolution of the covariance matrix For a system described by the quadrature operatorsr= (x 1, p1, . . . , xN , pN)⊺ obeying the canonical commu- tation relations [r,r ⊺] =iℏΩ,Ω := 0 1 −1 0 !⊕N ,(C1) the statistical properties of a Gaussian state are fully determined by its first and second moments di =⟨r i⟩, V ij = 1 2 ⟨rirj +r jri⟩,(C2) 26 where⟨ · ...
[78]

For the Hamiltonian given by (14), it is given by B=   0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1   with correlatorC(τ) = CA(τ) 0 0C B(τ) ! (C16) 27 a

Stochastic noise in the trapping Using that the noise has vanishing mean, i.e.⟨ξ i(t)⟩= 0, we find that the dynamics are given by ⟨d(t)⟩ξ =S(t)d(0) (C13) ⟨V(t)⟩ ξ =S(t)V(0)S(t) ⊺ +⟨h(t)h(t)⟩ ξ .(C14) The covariance Covξ[d] =⟨dd ⊺⟩ξ − ⟨d⟩ξ ⟨d⟩⊺ ξ is given by Covξ[d] = Z t 0 ds Z t 0 ds′ S(t−s)B C(s−s ′)B ⊺S(t−s ′)⊺ (C15) whereBincludes the linear interacti...
[79]

(B1) withθ A =θ B ≡θ: ˆHGravity ≈λ sin2 θ− 1 2 cos2 θ ˆxAˆxB + cos2 θ− 1 2 sin2 θ ˆyAˆyB − 3 2 cosθsinθ (ˆxAˆyB + ˆxB ˆyA)

Entanglement dynamics for Gaussian states Starting from the quadratically expanded gravitational Hamiltonian Eq. (B1) withθ A =θ B ≡θ: ˆHGravity ≈λ sin2 θ− 1 2 cos2 θ ˆxAˆxB + cos2 θ− 1 2 sin2 θ ˆyAˆyB − 3 2 cosθsinθ (ˆxAˆyB + ˆxB ˆyA) . (C23) To simplify the calculation, we only take terms coupling both particlesAandB, as all other terms cannot influence...
[80]

Corrections to non-Gaussianity After classical averaging, the resulting state⟨ρ⟩ ≡ρis in general no longer Gaussian. In lowest order, the deviation from the Gaussian reference stateρ G can be written as ρ=ρ G + ∆ρwith ∆ρ= Z dξ p(ξ) D(ξ)ρ GD†(ξ)−ρ G .(C28) Using the reverse triangle inequality for the trace norm, ∥ρ∥1 ≥ ∥ρ G∥1 − ∥∆ρ∥1 .(C29) and applying t...

Showing first 80 references.