Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 73 references

A quantum harmonic oscillator coupled to gravitons in anti-de Sitter spacetime can recohere rather than fully decohere, provided its frequency satisfies a discrete selection rule.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 15:31 UTC pith:B27OVWL3

load-bearing objection New AdS-graviton-bath master equation with a sound flat-space limit, but the advertised recoherence selection rule is an assumption wearing a prediction's clothes. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.18407 v1 pith:B27OVWL3 submitted 2026-07-20 hep-th

(De)Coherence of a quantum system in an anti-de Sitter spacetime

Mandas Biswas , Anupam Mazumdar This is my paper
classification hep-th MSC 81S2283C4583C47 PACS 04.60.-m03.65.Yz04.62.+v
keywords anti-de Sitter spacetimegravitational decoherencerecoherenceselection rulesquantum harmonic oscillatormaster equationLindblad dissipatorgraviton modes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper claims that a harmonically trapped quantum system in anti-de Sitter spacetime, interacting with the quantized gravitational field, does not necessarily suffer irreversible decoherence. Because AdS behaves like a reflecting box, graviton modes form a discrete spectrum, and the per-mode decoherence rate oscillates in time as sin(Δωt)/Δω. By matching the first revival of this oscillation to the finite time light takes to cross the AdS geometry, the authors derive a selection rule, 2n+ℓ = 2(1+ω_m L/c), under which all relevant modes recohere simultaneously. If true, this means that for selected oscillator frequencies the system's information is never completely lost, and the usual flat-space gravitational decoherence is recovered only in the L→∞ limit.

Core claim

The central discovery is that gravitational decoherence of a quantum harmonic oscillator in global AdS is not monotonic: each graviton mode contributes a decoherence rate Γ_nℓ ∝ (2ℓ+1)R²_nℓ(ρ) ω³_nℓ sin(Δω t)/Δω, where Δω = ω_nℓ − 2ω_m. Because the AdS spectrum is discrete, ω_nℓ = (c/L)(2n+ℓ+2), this rate oscillates and turns negative—an interval of recoherence. The authors set the first revival time t₁ = 2π/(ω_nℓ − 2ω_m) equal to the AdS light-crossing time t = πL/(2c), which yields the selection rule 2n+ℓ = 2(1+ω_m L/c), ℓ≥2. When this holds, each contributing mode recoheres at the same instant, so the oscillator never fully decoheres. In the flat-space limit the rule reduces to ordinary m

What carries the argument

The key object is the selection rule (Eq. 71), 2n+ℓ = 2(1+ω_m L/c) with ℓ≥2, obtained by equating the revival time of the per-mode decoherence coefficient Γ_nℓ(t) ∝ sin(Δω t)/Δω to the finite AdS boundary light-crossing time πL/(2c). It encodes the global (boundary-induced) conservation rule, alongside the local rule Δω = 0 that reduces to flat-space momentum conservation. The discrete graviton spectrum ω_nℓ = (c/L)(2n+ℓ+2) and the radial mode functions R_nℓ(ρ) carry the argument: the mode sum in the semi-Markovian master equation turns the usual Markovian delta-function into a finite-time sinc-like oscillation.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's recoherence selection rule rests on assuming that the revival period of each mode's decoherence rate exactly equals the AdS light-crossing time πL/(2c); nothing in the master equation requires this, and the illustrative choice ω_m = 2c/L also violates the paper's own ω_m ≫ c/L approximation.

What would settle it

Compute the semi-Markovian decoherence rate Γ_nℓ(t) without setting its first zero equal to πL/(2c). If the revivals of different modes do not coincide at a common time, no global recoherence time exists, and the selection rule (71) is an artifact of the imposed matching.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • For oscillator frequencies satisfying 2n+ℓ = 2(1+ω_m L/c), the decoherence coefficient of each resonant mode returns to zero periodically, so the system recoheres and its information is not completely lost.
  • In the flat-space limit (n→∞, L→∞ with ω_nℓ fixed), the AdS selection rule reduces to the standard ω_k = 2ω_m momentum-conservation rule, and the decoherence rate becomes the known γ = (32/15) t_Pl² ω_m³.
  • The mode with the smallest ℓ for a given ω_m L/c dominates the recoherence signal, since higher-ℓ contributions are suppressed by powers of ρ near the center.
  • The AdS vacuum-energy (Lamb-type) shift in the master equation is finite, oscillatory, and reversible, unlike a flat-space Casimir-type term, making it in principle observable.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The recoherence mechanism is essentially a finite-cavity effect: the AdS boundary acts like a reflecting box, so the analogy to cavity-QED revivals suggests that a full non-Markovian treatment beyond leading order could produce partial (not full) recoherence and a time-dependent Lamb shift; the paper only proves the effect at zeroth order.
  • The selection rule (71) effectively ties the IR parameter (oscillator frequency) to the UV parameter (AdS curvature), which the authors speculate supports a holographic UV/IR relation; a sharper test would be to verify whether the same rule emerges from a boundary CFT description.
  • The illustrative example ω_m = 2c/L lies outside the ω_m ≫ c/L validity of the curvature-correction expansion, so the quantitative rates (84–86) should be checked numerically against the exact mode sum before being taken literally.
  • If the revival-time matching is not imposed, the effect disappears; an experimental analogue in a one-dimensional cavity with discrete modes could test whether recoherence requires exact equality of revival and round-trip times or only commensurability.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies decoherence of a quantum harmonic oscillator coupled to linearised quantum gravitons in global AdS4. It constructs a matter–graviton interaction Hamiltonian, derives a second-order semi-Markovian master equation for the reduced density matrix (Eq. (65)), and reads off a per-mode decoherence rate Γ_nℓ ∝ sin(Δω t)/Δω (Eq. (68)). By equating the revival period 2π/Δω with the AdS light-crossing time πL/(2c) it obtains the selection rule 2n+ℓ = 2(1+ω_m L/c) (Eq. (71)) and claims that for certain oscillator frequencies the system recoheres and never loses information globally. It gives an explicit example ω_m = 2c/L and attempts to recover the flat-space decoherence rate γ = (32/15) t_Pl² ω_m³ in the L→∞ limit.

Significance. The subject is timely and the open-system formalism applied to gravitons in AdS is a promising direction. The explicit derivation of the master equation, the concrete mode-by-mode expressions, and the attempt to connect a local decoherence calculation with the global AdS scale are all useful elements. If the selection rule were actually derived from the master equation, the result would be an interesting IR/UV-type connection between an oscillator frequency and the AdS curvature. However, the central selection rule is an input assumption rather than a consequence of the calculation, and the global recoherence conclusion is not established from the per-mode rates. The paper therefore does not currently support its advertised claim.

major comments (4)
  1. [§IV.A, Eq. (69)] The revival-time equality is assumed, not derived. The master equation (65) gives Γ_nℓ ∝ sin(Δω t)/Δω, whose period is 2π/Δω = 2π/(ω_nℓ − 2ω_m); this is fixed by the local frequency mismatch. The sentence after Eq. (68) asserts that the revival time must be periodic in 2πI and 'in principle' equal to integer multiples of the light-crossing time Eq. (11). But πL/(2c) enters nowhere in the derivation of Eq. (65), and the bath correlation function contains no boundary light-crossing scale. Eq. (69) therefore imposes a relation that Eqs. (70)–(71) merely restate, and the choice I=1 is an extra free input. Without a derivation from a boundary-conditioned master equation or another dynamical mechanism, the selection rule is not a prediction.
  2. [§IV.B, example after Eq. (84)] The example ω_m = 2c/L violates the regime ω_m ≫ c/L used in Sec. III.A. Eq. (27) gives δω/ω_m = c²/(2ω_m² L²) = 1/8, so the AdS curvature correction to the oscillator frequency is not small as assumed. In addition, the text states that for (n,ℓ)=(2,2), ω_22 = 8c/L and 'therefore, Δω = 6c/L'; with ω_m = 2c/L one obtains Δω = ω_22 − 2ω_m = 4c/L. The subsequent expression sin(4ct/L) corresponds to Δω = 4c/L, so the example is internally inconsistent. The passage also writes ω_m = 2L/c instead of 2c/L in the sentence following Eq. (84).
  3. [§IV.B and §V] The global conclusion that the system 'never loses its information globally' is not supported. Eqs. (84)–(86) are contributions of only three modes. The total rate is Σ_{n,ℓ} Γ_nℓ(t); all modes not satisfying Eq. (71) contribute positive, generally unsynchronized terms, and the selected modes are not shown to dominate. Moreover, at the proposed revival time t1 = 2π/Δω, α_R = sin(2π)/Δω = 0, not negative. The negative lobe of sin(Δω t)/Δω is π/Δω < t < 2π/Δω; no definite time is identified at which the summed rate becomes negative. A per-mode zero or negative coefficient does not by itself imply recoherence of the reduced state, and the paper never computes or bounds the full mode sum.
  4. [Footnote 5 and Appendix B] The flat-space limit is not obtained by taking Δω→0 in α_R = sin(Δω t)/Δω; the limit at fixed t is t, not the constant γ. Appendix B instead performs a Markovian t→∞ limit and uses a delta function identity to obtain γ. These are different limiting procedures, and the paper should present them consistently. As written, the claim that the flat-space rate is recovered from Eq. (68) by Δω→0 is incorrect, and the appendix's mode redefinition Eq. (B11) is asserted rather than derived.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eqs. (54)–(57)] The replacement of the polarization sum by (2ℓ+1)(Λ1111)² in Eq. (57) is not justified by Eq. (54), which gives a sum of products of two ε's; after squaring the coupling one expects a sum of four ε's. Please clarify the prefactor and the definition of Λ1111 used in Eq. (81).
  2. [Eq. (58) vs Eq. (33)] The symbol N is used both for the number operator b†b+bb† in Eq. (58) and for the mode-normalization constants N_{nℓ} in Eq. (33). This is confusing and should be changed.
  3. [Eq. (33) and Appendix B] The prefactor of R_{nℓ} in Eq. (33) appears to be √π/(2L³) times N_{nℓ}, whereas the asymptotic estimate in Eq. (B10) uses 1/(π L^{3/2}). Please check the normalization and make the two expressions consistent.
  4. [Appendix D] Appendix D is a long pedagogical review of cavity QED that is not used in the main derivation. It should be shortened substantially or moved to supplementary material.
  5. [§V] The concluding speculation that Eq. (71) constrains the cosmological constant through the local oscillator frequency should be explicitly marked as speculative, since Eq. (71) is itself conditional on the unproved revival-time assumption.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The recoherence selection rule Eq. (71) is the assumed revival-period input rearranged: t₁ = πL/(2c) is imposed, and the 'predicted' recohering modes follow by construction; the global 'never loses information' claim adds an unperformed sum over all modes.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV.A, between Eq. (68) and Eq. (71)]
    "The physical time window on which this function turns negative is the exact interval on which recoherence happens - and this revival time must be periodic in 2πI, I∈(0,1,2,...) and in principle, be equal to integer multiples of the timescale calculated in Eq. (11). ... The first revival time is therefore given by t1 = 2π / [c/L(2n+ℓ+2)−2ω_m] = πL/(2c) (69)"

    Δω = ω_nℓ − 2ω_m (Eq. 67), so sin(Δωt)/Δω has period 2π/|Δω|, set by the local frequency mismatch alone; the master equation (65) contains no AdS boundary or light-crossing time. The equality t₁ = πL/(2c) is imposed ('in principle'), and Eq. (71) — the advertised selection rule — is exactly Eq. (69) rearranged: 2π/(ω_nℓ−2ω_m) = πL/(2c) ⟺ 2n+ℓ = 2(1+ω_mL/c). The recohering-mode set is therefore the assumed revival period by construction; nothing in the master equation forces the revival time to equal the boundary crossing time.

  2. other [Sec. IV.B example and Sec. V conclusion]
    "we take an example ω_mL/c = 2, then, (n, ℓ) = (2,2),(1,4),(0,6), from (71) - these are three possible combinations allowed from this particular value of ω_m and each of the modes implies that the coherence coefficient becomes negative at the same time ... for certain choices of frequencies of the graviton the system actually never loses its information globally."

    Not a circular reduction but an omitted step that makes the circular step load-bearing: the concluding 'never loses its information globally' claim requires the total rate Σ_{n,ℓ} Γ_nℓ(t) to become negative at the revival time. The paper computes only the three selected modes (Eqs. 84–86) and never sums over non-selected modes (ℓ=3,5,… and non-selected n), whose contributions are not shown to vanish or cancel. Even granting Eq. (71), the global recoherence conclusion does not follow from the mode-by-mode rule alone.

full rationale

I find one load-bearing circular step plus one compounding inference gap. (1) Section IV.A: after deriving Γ_nℓ ∝ sin(Δωt)/Δω (Eq. 68) the paper asserts the revival time 'must ... be equal to integer multiples of the timescale calculated in Eq. (11)' and sets the first revival time t₁ = 2π/(ω_nℓ−2ω_m) = πL/(2c) (Eq. 69). The period 2π/|Δω| is a property of the local frequency mismatch alone; the AdS light-crossing time πL/(2c) enters only through this asserted identification. Eq. (71) is Eq. (69) rearranged algebraically, so the central prediction — which graviton modes recohere — reduces to the assumed period. That is pattern 2, an assumed/fitted input called a prediction; because it is the paper's central claim, the score is 6, not 0. (2) The global claim that the system 'never loses its information' additionally requires the summed decoherence rate to become negative; only three selected modes are exhibited (Eqs. 84–86), and the sum over all modes, including non-selected ℓ, is never performed. This is an omitted derivation, not a circularity per se, but it is load-bearing for the advertised conclusion. The remainder of the paper is self-contained: the trace over the graviton vacuum leading to Eq. (65) is standard second-order perturbation theory, and the flat-space limit (Appendix B) reproduces γ_grav = (32/15)t_Pl²ω_m³, matching the published, independently refereed result [63] (Toros-Mazumdar-Bose, Phys. Rev. D 109, 084050 (2024)). That self-citation is a consistency check against an external benchmark, not the load-bearing argument, so per hard rule 4 it does not raise the score. Two non-circular correctness concerns, noted for completeness: the example ω_m = 2c/L sits only marginally within the ω_m ≫ c/L and δω/ω_m ≪ 1 approximations (Eq. 27), and the use of the unwrapped global time for the revival period versus the boundary condition is asserted rather than derived.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 6 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced; the AdS graviton modes and the harmonic oscillator are standard ingredients. The accounting: the central derivation assumes (a) Δ=2 scalar-like graviton spectrum, (b) reflecting boundary conditions, (c) FNC vertex with negligible curvature correction, (d) Born + second-order time-local master equation, (e) RWA validity, and (f) revival-period = boundary-crossing-time matching. (f) is ad hoc to this paper and manufactures the headline selection rule; (c) and (e) are violated by the paper's own example. No parameters are fitted to data, but two hand-chosen inputs (I=1; ω_m L/c = 2) and inconsistent normalization values carry the quantitative results.

free parameters (3)
  • Revival-time matching integer I = I = 1 (first revival)
    Sec. IV.A, Eq. (69): the revival time is asserted to be an integer multiple of the AdS light-crossing time πL/(2c). Choosing I=1 fixes Δω = 4c/L and produces the selection rule (71); a different I gives different allowed (ω_m, L), so the rule is set by hand.
  • Example frequency product ω_m L/c = 2
    Chosen in Sec. IV.B for demonstration; yields modes (2,2), (1,4), (0,6) but violates the stated assumption ω_m ≫ c/L of Sec. III.A, invalidating the approximation used to derive the interaction vertex (δω/ω_m = 1/8).
  • Mode normalizations used in Sec. IV.B = N₂₂² ≈ 74.6 (N₁₄² ≈ 84.3, N₀₆² ≈ 259 implied)
    These values are needed to produce Γ₂₂, Γ₁₄, Γ₀₆ in Eqs. (84)-(86), but the paper's own formula (34) gives N₂₂² ≈ 4.73 for (2,2); the example coefficients are therefore inconsistent with the stated normalization.
axioms (6)
  • domain assumption Linearized graviton in AdS obeys (□ + 2/L²)h = 0 with Δ = 2, i.e., behaves as a scalar with m²L² = −2
    Invoked via Eq. (31) and the Witten-Crnkovic equivalence; standard AdS results (refs. [33,47]) but load-bearing for the discrete spectrum ω_nℓ = (c/L)(2n+ℓ+2).
  • domain assumption Reflecting (Dirichlet) boundary conditions at the AdS boundary; standard (Δ=2) quantization
    Appendix A imposes A=0 standard quantization, making the graviton spectrum discrete; the discrete spectrum is what produces oscillatory (recoherent) rates. Alternate quantization would change the mode content.
  • domain assumption Fermi-Normal-Coordinate interaction vertex H_int = (m/4)∂²h₁₁/∂t² x², with AdS background curvature terms dropped
    Eq. (30) and Sec. III.A require δω/ω_m = c²/(2ω_m²L²) ≪ 1. The Sec. IV.B example (ω_m = 2c/L) has δω/ω_m = 1/8, violating this assumption.
  • domain assumption Born + weak-coupling factorization ρ_tot ≈ ρ⊗ρ_g and truncation of the master equation at order G with finite-time upper limit
    Standard open-quantum-systems assumptions (Sec. IV). Load-bearing because the recoherence claim relies on the sign of a second-order rate near t ~ πL/(2c), where the perturbative expansion in γ·t need not be small; the paper admits a full non-Markovian treatment is left to future work.
  • domain assumption Rotating-wave approximation: terms e^{±4iω_m t} average to zero
    Sec. IV after Eq. (62). At the revival time t₁ = πL/(2c) with ω_m = 2c/L, e^{4iω_m t} = e^{4πi} = 1, so the dropped terms are back in phase exactly where recoherence is claimed.
  • ad hoc to paper The first revival period equals the AdS boundary light-crossing time πL/(2c)
    Sec. IV.A, near Eq. (69): 'this revival time must be periodic in 2πI... and in principle, be equal to integer multiples of the timescale calculated in Eq. (11)'. No dynamical derivation; this is the input that produces the selection rule (71).

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 23945 in / 34053 out tokens · 271259 ms · 2026-08-01T15:31:29.033437+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper, we study the coherence/decoherence of a quantum harmonic oscillator in anti-de Sitter (AdS) spacetime by quantising the graviton in a curved background with a nontrivial boundary condition. In the quantum-field-theory framework, we obtain a master equation by tracing away the gravitational field at the leading order in G and 1/omega^2, where omega is related to the trapped frequency of the harmonic oscillator. We will proceed with a semi-Markovian analysis to compute the Lindbladian equation and estimate the decoherence rate and selection rules at the leading order, which come in two kinds: one responsible for the local interaction between matter and graviton, and the other related to the AdS global curvature. The latter determines the recoherence of the quantum system for a certain choice of the trapped harmonic oscillator's frequency and the global curvature. We also demonstrate that we recover the flat spacetime limit by taking appropriate approximations.

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Thus, we can have the classical Einstein quadrupole ra- diation power [40], dE dt =− G 45c2 X i,j (

    We can calculate the quadrupole moment for a point mass using Qij =m(3x ixj −r 2δij) We note,r 2 =x 2 =A 2 cos2(ωt) = A2 2 (1 + cos(2ωt)). Thus, we can have the classical Einstein quadrupole ra- diation power [40], dE dt =− G 45c2 X i,j ( ... Q ij)2 =− 32G 15c5 m2A4ω6 sin2(2ωt) =− 32Gm2c 15L2 tan4 ρ1 sin2 2ct L (17) whereω=c/L. We can easily check that in...

  2. [2]

    Born approximation: we assume the Born approxi- mation first,ρ tot s ≈ρ s⊗ρ(g) on the RHS of Eq. (46). It automatically precludes any entanglement be- tween the matter-wave system and the gravita- tional field, as we are explicitly assuming a factor- izable state to begin with. We also note that the absence of the subscriptsin the reduced gravita- tional ...

  3. [3]

    (46) local in time such that the state of the equation only depends onρ t at timetand not on earlier times of the state

    Semi-Markov approximation: We will now make Eq. (46) local in time such that the state of the equation only depends onρ t at timetand not on earlier times of the state. For this, we formally solve the von Neumann equation to connect the state at timeswith the state at timetto find, ρtot s =ρ tot t + i ℏ Z t s ds′[H int s′ , ρtot s′ ] (47) as we have done ...

  4. [4]

    P. G. C. Rufo, A. Mazumdar, and C. Sab ´ ın, Phys. Rev. A111, 022444 (2025)

    2025

  5. [5]

    The physical time window on which this function turns negative is the exact interval on which recoherence happens - and this revival time must be periodic in 2πI, I∈(0,1,2, ...) and in principle, be equal to integer multiples of the time- scale calculated in Eq. (11). We define the revival/recoherence time as the periodic intervals upon which the initial ...

    2023

  6. [6]

    and substitute it back in equation for ˙c e(t) to get, ˙ce(t) =− Z t 0 dt′ X k |gk|2ei(ωa−ωk)(t−t′)ce(t′).(D9) We can now replace the sum over modes by an integral over the spectral density modes, thus yielding, ˙ce(t) =− Z t 0 dt′f(t−t ′)ce(t′) (D10) Here,f(t−t ′) is the memory kernel, which is given by f(t−t ′) = Z dωJ(ω)e i(ωa−ω)(t−t′) .(D11) To find a...

  7. [7]

    Kia lka, Y

    F. Kia lka, Y. Y. Fein, S. Pedalino, S. Gerlich, and M. Arndt, A VS Quantum Science4, 020502 (2022)

    2022

  8. [8]

    S. N. Gupta, Phys. Rev.96, 1683 (1954)

    1954

  9. [9]

    Horodecki, P

    R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Rev. Mod. Phys.81, 865 (2009), arXiv:quant-ph/0702225

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  10. [10]

    Mazumdar and T

    A. Mazumdar and T. Zhou, arXiv preprint arXiv:2605.05153 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  11. [11]

    Toroˇ s, A

    M. Toroˇ s, A. Mazumdar, and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. D109, 084050 (2024), arXiv:2008.08609 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  12. [12]

    Gasperini and V

    M. Gasperini and V. De Sabbata,Introduction to gravi- tation(1986)

    1986

  13. [13]

    Anastopoulos and B

    C. Anastopoulos and B. L. Hu, Class. Quant. Grav.30, 165007 (2013), arXiv:1305.5231 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  14. [14]

    M. P. Blencowe, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 021302 (2013), arXiv:1211.4751 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  15. [15]

    V. A. De Lorenci and L. H. Ford, Phys. Rev. D91, 044038 (2015), arXiv:1412.4685 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    Oniga and C

    T. Oniga and C. H. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D93, 044027 (2016), arXiv:1511.06678 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Oniga and C

    T. Oniga and C. H. T. Wang, Phys. Rev. D96, 084014 (2017), arXiv:1701.04122 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  18. [18]

    Parikh, F

    M. Parikh, F. Wilczek, and G. Zahariade, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D29, 2042001 (2020), arXiv:2005.07211 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  19. [19]

    Parikh, F

    M. Parikh, F. Wilczek, and G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. D 104, 046021 (2021), arXiv:2010.08208 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  20. [20]

    D. L. Danielson, G. Satishchandran, and R. M. Wald, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D31, 2241003 (2022), arXiv:2205.06279 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  21. [21]

    D. L. Danielson, G. Satishchandran, and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D108, 025007 (2023), arXiv:2301.00026 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  22. [22]

    Wilson-Gerow, A

    J. Wilson-Gerow, A. Dugad, and Y. Chen, Phys. Rev. D 110, 045002 (2024), arXiv:2405.00804 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  23. [23]

    Biggs and J

    A. Biggs and J. Maldacena, Comparing the decoherence effects due to black holes versus ordinary matter (2024), arXiv:2405.02227 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroˇ s, M. Paternostro, A. Geraci, P. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240401 (2017)

    2017

  25. [25]

    R. J. Marshman, A. Mazumdar, and S. Bose, Phys. Rev. A101, 052110 (2020), arXiv:1907.01568 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, M. Schut, and M. Toroˇ s, Phys. Rev. D105, 106028 (2022), arXiv:2201.03583 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  27. [27]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240402 (2017)

    2017

  28. [28]

    Biswas, S

    D. Biswas, S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, and M. Toroˇ s, Phys. Rev. D108, 064023 (2023)

    2023

  29. [29]

    Biswas, S

    D. Biswas, S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, and M. Toroˇ s, (2026), arXiv:2606.09991 [quant-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  30. [30]

    Maldacena, International Journal of Theoretical Physics38, 1113–1133 (1999)

    J. Maldacena, International Journal of Theoretical Physics38, 1113–1133 (1999). 9 The AdS boundary is generally considered as part of a conformal class

    1999

  31. [31]

    Witten, Anti de sitter space and holography (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802150 [hep-th]

    E. Witten, Anti de sitter space and holography (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9802150 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  32. [32]

    Ryu and T

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Physical Review Letters96, 10.1103/physrevlett.96.181602 (2006)

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.181602 2006

  33. [33]

    Ryu and T

    S. Ryu and T. Takayanagi, Journal of High Energy Physics2006, 045–045 (2006)

    2006

  34. [34]

    Penington, Entanglement wedge reconstruction and the information paradox (2020), arXiv:1905.08255 [hep- th]

    G. Penington, Entanglement wedge reconstruction and the information paradox (2020), arXiv:1905.08255 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  35. [35]

    Almheiri, X

    A. Almheiri, X. Dong, and D. Harlow, Journal of High Energy Physics2015, 10.1007/jhep04(2015)163 (2015)

    doi:10.1007/jhep04(2015)163 2015

  36. [36]

    Leutheusser and H

    S. Leutheusser and H. Liu, Phys. Rev. D111, 066021 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Takayanagi, Emergent holographic spacetime from quantum information (2025), arXiv:2506.06595 [hep-th]

    T. Takayanagi, Emergent holographic spacetime from quantum information (2025), arXiv:2506.06595 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    D’Hoker, D

    E. D’Hoker, D. Z. Freedman, S. D. Mathur, A. Matusis, and L. Rastelli, Nuclear Physics B562, 330–352 (1999)

    1999

  39. [39]

    R. N. Moga and K. Skenderis, Phys. Rev. D113, 126022 (2026)

    2026

  40. [40]

    J. R. Anglin, R. Laflamme, W. H. Zurek, and J. P. Paz, Physical Review D52, 2221–2231 (1995)

    1995

  41. [41]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D15, 2752 (1977)

    1977

  42. [42]

    J. D. Brown and J. W. York, Phys. Rev. D47, 1420 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9209014 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  43. [43]

    Blau, Lecture notes on general relativity (2025), http://blau.itp.unibe.ch/GRLecturenotes.html

    M. Blau, Lecture notes on general relativity (2025), http://blau.itp.unibe.ch/GRLecturenotes.html

    2025

  44. [44]

    Kaplan, Lectures on ads/cft from the bottom up,http://www.stat.ucla.edu/ ~ywu/AdSCFT.pdf, lec- ture notes

    J. Kaplan, Lectures on ads/cft from the bottom up,http://www.stat.ucla.edu/ ~ywu/AdSCFT.pdf, lec- ture notes

  45. [45]

    Maggiore,Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments, Vol

    M. Maggiore,Gravitational Waves: Volume 1: Theory and Experiments, Vol. 1 (Oxford University Press, 2008)

    2008

  46. [46]

    Rakhmanov, Classical and Quantum Gravity31, 085006 (2014)

    M. Rakhmanov, Classical and Quantum Gravity31, 085006 (2014)

    2014

  47. [47]

    Parker and D

    L. Parker and D. Toms,Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime: Quantized Fields and Gravity(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2009)

    2009

  48. [48]

    C. P. Burgess, Living Reviews in Relativity7, 5 (2004)

    2004

  49. [49]

    Crnkovic and E

    C. Crnkovic and E. Witten, inThree Hundred Years of Gravitation, edited by S. W. Hawking and W. Israel (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987) pp. 676– 684

    1987

  50. [50]

    Farolfi and F

    L. Farolfi and F. Fecit, The fierz-pauli theory on curved spacetime at one-loop and its counterterms (2025), arXiv:2503.11304 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    Fierz and W

    M. Fierz and W. Pauli, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London A173, 211 (1939)

    1939

  52. [52]

    S. M. Carroll,Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduc- tion to General Relativity(Cambridge University Press, 2019)

    2019

  53. [53]

    V. V. Ignatyuk and V. G. Morozov, Master equation for open quantum systems: Zwanzig-nakajima projec- tion technique and the intrinsic bath dynamics (2019), arXiv:1911.12312 [cond-mat.stat-mech]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  54. [54]

    C. P. J. Poole, inRelaxation in Magnetic Resonance: Dielectric and Mossbauer Applications(Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, 2012) Chap. 8.10, pp. 119–122

    2012

  55. [55]

    Feynman and F

    R. Feynman and F. Vernon, Annals of Physics24, 118 (1963)

    1963

  56. [56]

    Biryukov and M

    A. Biryukov and M. Shleenkov, EPJ Web Conf.125, 05016 (2016). 18

    2016

  57. [57]

    Breuer and F

    H.-P. Breuer and F. Petruccione,The Theory of Open Quantum Systems(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2002)

    2002

  58. [58]

    Gardiner and P

    C. Gardiner and P. Zoller,Quantum Noise: A Handbook of Markovian and Non-Markovian Quantum Stochastic Methods with Applications to Quantum Optics, 3rd ed. (Springer, Berlin, 2004)

    2004

  59. [59]

    G. S. Agarwal,Quantum Optics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2012)

    2012

  60. [60]

    Nicholson, Quadratic transformations of hyperge- ometric function and series with harmonic numbers (2019), arXiv:1801.02428 [math.CA]

    M. Nicholson, Quadratic transformations of hyperge- ometric function and series with harmonic numbers (2019), arXiv:1801.02428 [math.CA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  61. [61]

    Berenstein and J

    D. Berenstein and J. Simon, Phys. Rev. D113, 105003 (2026), arXiv:2510.23697 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    N. B. Agmon, A. Bedroya, M. J. Kang, and C. Vafa, Lec- tures on the string landscape and the swampland (2023), arXiv:2212.06187 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  63. [63]

    Bousso, Journal of High Energy Physics1999, 004–004 (1999)

    R. Bousso, Journal of High Energy Physics1999, 004–004 (1999)

    1999

  64. [64]

    Cribiori and F

    N. Cribiori and F. Tonioni, Cosmological constraints from uv/ir mixing (2026), arXiv:2507.02738 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2026

  65. [65]

    G. E. Andrews, R. Askey, and R. Roy,Special Func- tions, Encyclopedia of Mathematics and its Applications, Vol. 71 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1999)

    1999

  66. [66]

    Bianchi, Quantum scalar theories in the ads/cft cor- respondence (2021), arXiv:2107.09052 [hep-th]

    E. Bianchi, Quantum scalar theories in the ads/cft cor- respondence (2021), arXiv:2107.09052 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    Oniga and C

    T. Oniga and C. H.-T. Wang, Physical Review D93, 044027 (2016)

    2016

  68. [68]

    Toroˇ s, A

    M. Toroˇ s, A. Mazumdar, and S. Bose, Physical Review D109, 10.1103/physrevd.109.084050 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.109.084050 2024

  69. [69]

    Fareghbal and M

    R. Fareghbal and M. Hakami Shalamzari, Physical Re- view D100, 10.1103/physrevd.100.106006 (2019)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.106006 2019

  70. [70]

    The Casimir-Effect: No Manifestation of Zero-Point Energy

    G. Gr¨ undler, arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.1303.3790 (2013), arXiv:1303.3790 [physics.gen-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv doi:10.48550/arxiv.1303.3790 2013

  71. [71]

    Berciu, The jaynes–cummings model,https: //phas.ubc.ca/~berciu/TEACHING/PHYS502/PROJECTS/ 20-JC-AA.pdf(2020), pHYS 502 course project notes

    M. Berciu, The jaynes–cummings model,https: //phas.ubc.ca/~berciu/TEACHING/PHYS502/PROJECTS/ 20-JC-AA.pdf(2020), pHYS 502 course project notes

    2020

  72. [72]

    Miao and W

    H.-h. Miao and W. Li, Heliyon11, e41194 (2025)

    2025

  73. [73]

    Balasubramanian and P

    V. Balasubramanian and P. Kraus, Communications in Mathematical Physics208, 413–428 (1999)

    1999