Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Quantum Geometric Phases as a New Window on Gravitational Waves

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that low-frequency gravitational waves imprint an Aharonov-Bohm-like geometric phase on the quantum state of a mesoscopic mirror, and that a Ramsey interferometer can extract that phase even when the classical displacement

desk verdict Promising GW detector concept undone by algebraic errors in the central phase derivation; worth refereeing, not citing yet. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.05881 v3 pith:5NLNLB3O submitted 2025-08-07 hep-th gr-qcquant-ph

Partha Nandi , Frederik G. Scholtz This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qcquant-ph
keywords gravitationalwavesgeometricphaseAharonov-Bohm-likeBerryoptomechanicsRamseyinterferometrymesoscopicmirrorlow-frequency
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper argues that a low-frequency gravitational wave, combined with steady radiation pressure and a periodically modulated optical trap, makes a small ground-state-cooled mirror's center-of-mass wavefunction pick up an Aharonov-Bohm-like geometric phase—a phase with no classical counterpart that persists even when the mirror returns to its starting configuration. The authors derive a closed-form expression for this phase, $\Phi_{\mathrm{AB}}\approx -4\pi \omega_g \chi_0 \epsilon_+ F_{\mathrm{rad}}^2 Z/(\hbar \Omega^2 \sqrt{\epsilon})$, and show it grows as the trap modulation parameter $\epsilon$ is reduced. They propose a Ramsey-type interferometer in which photon-number states entangle with mirror motion, so the phase appears as a shift in the probability of detecting the vacuum state; matching branches cancel the Berry and dynamical contributions, leaving the AB-like term. If correct, this opens a quantum-phase route to ultra-low-frequency gravitational waves in a band where classical strain measurements lose sensitivity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Aharonov-Bohm-like geometric phase expressed as a closed contour integral over Hamiltonian parameter space, $\Phi_{\mathrm{AB}}=\oint_C \mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{AB}}\cdot d\mathbf{R}$, where $\mathbf{R}=(\omega_0(t),Y_g(t))$ and $\mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{AB}}=-\frac{1}{2\hbar}a^2\nabla_{\mathbf{R}}(Y_g/Z)$. The displacement $a(t)=F_{\mathrm{rad}}Z/\omega^2(t)$ encodes the radiation-pressure force $F_{\mathrm{rad}}=\hbar g$; moving this displacement around the periodic gravitational-wave loop produces a phase that is invisible to the classical trajectory. The second load-bearing element is the Ramsey protocol: branch-dependent radiation pressure creates two histories (photon a

What would settle it

Run the proposed Ramsey sequence on a ground-state-cooled mesoscopic mirror with the trap modulation locked to a known periodic strain source, and measure $P_0$ for forward and time-reversed modulation. The claim predicts a sign-flipping differential phase that scales as $\epsilon^{-3/2}$ at fixed $\omega_g$; observing no such scaling, or observing the same phase when the modulation and source frequencies are detuned, would falsify the AB-like geometric origin.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that an adiabatic, cyclic evolution of a mesoscopic optomechanical mirror under a low-frequency gravitational wave produces two geometric phases: a Berry phase that has a classical Hannay-angle analogue, and a previously unidentified Aharonov-Bohm-like phase with no classical counterpart. The AB-like phase comes from radiation-pressure-driven coherent displacement of the mirror's wavepacket and is a closed-loop integral of the connection $\mathbf{A}_{\mathrm{AB}}=-\frac{1}{2\hbar}a^2\nabla_{\mathbf{R}}(Y_g/Z)$, with $a(t)=F_{\mathrm{rad}}Z/\omega^2(t)$ the displacement amplitude and $Y_g=\dot{\chi}(t)\epsilon_+$ the tidal coupling. In the small-modulation limit i

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the mirror's center-of-mass motion remains in a single energy eigenstate with negligible decoherence throughout the gravitational-wave cycle, with the trap modulation exactly locked to the wave frequency—the step used in the Ramsey readout (Eqs. (56)-(60))—so that the two branch evolution operators reduce to pure phase factors; if that fails, the interference formula and the claimed Berry-phase cancellation collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A gravitational wave can imprint a detectable phase on a quantum mirror even when the mirror's net displacement is zero or buried in noise, so the scheme probes a part of the gravitational-wave signal that displacement-based detectors miss.
  • Because $R_{\mathrm{GW}}\sim \epsilon^{-3/2}$, tightening the optical trap (smaller $\epsilon$) amplifies the geometric phase relative to the dynamical one, making ultra-low frequencies such as $\omega_g\sim 10^{-3}$ Hz accessible to a compact experiment.
  • Comparing forward and time-reversed trap modulation isolates $\Phi_{\mathrm{AB}}$ without needing a gravitational-wave-free control run, since the dynamical phase is invariant under time reversal while the geometric phase flips sign.
  • The same Hamiltonian yields both the Berry and AB-like phases, so a single experiment can in principle measure both and check their predicted scaling with strain amplitude, gravitational-wave frequency, and polarization.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Inference: the same parameter-space loop mechanism would apply to any periodic spacetime-curvature source—not just gravitational waves—if the trap modulation is locked to that source's frequency, making the protocol a tunable phase receiver for tidal or orbital signals.
  • Inference: the time-reversal antisymmetry gives a built-in falsification handle; a measured differential phase that does not change sign when the modulation is reversed cannot be the claimed geometric phase, regardless of its magnitude.
  • Inference: the theory assumes the mirror starts in the same motional state in both Ramsey branches; a direct experimental prediction is that the extracted AB phase degrades as thermal occupation rises, because the branch evolution operators cease to act as pure phase factors.
  • Inference: although the paper treats the gravitational wave classically, the same Hamiltonian structure suggests that a quantized-graviton background would modify the AB phase through field fluctuations, a connection the authors leave open for future work.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes that a low-frequency gravitational wave, acting on a mesoscopic optomechanical mirror with radiation pressure and a synchronized trap modulation, produces a Berry phase and an Aharonov–Bohm-like geometric phase. It derives formal expressions for these phases, evaluates them by contour integrals, and proposes a Ramsey-type interferometer to isolate and read out the AB-like phase. The central quantitative claims are the small-ε scaling Φ_AB ~ ε^{-1/2} and the dimensionless ratio R_GW ~ 4ω_g^2 χ0 ε_+/ε^{3/2}, which would allegedly make ultra-low-frequency GWs detectable. I find that the explicit evaluation of the AB phase is not correct and that the dynamical-phase and ratio formulas contain dimensional inconsistencies, so the main quantitative results are unsupported.

Significance. The idea of using quantum geometric phases as a gravitational-wave probe is original and timely, and the formal framework up to the connection decomposition in Eqs. (27)–(32) is a reasonable starting point. If the claimed scaling were correct, the proposal would open a genuinely new, phase-based window to low-frequency GWs. The paper also gives a concrete Ramsey protocol with a clear readout, which is a useful conceptual contribution. However, the central quantitative results rest on algebraic errors: Eq. (37) does not follow from Eq. (27), and the dynamical phase in Eq. (65) is dimensionally inconsistent. These are load-bearing defects, not presentation issues, and they invalidate the detectability analysis in Fig. 2. The manuscript contains no machine-checked proofs or reproducible code, and at present its key predictions are not reliable.

major comments (3)
  1. [§III.A, Eqs. (27)–(40)] Equation (37) does not follow from Eq. (27). Substituting a = F_rad Z/ω^2 and Y_g = ω_g χ0 ε+ sin(ω_g t) into the AB term gives Φ_AB = -(F_rad^2 Z/(2ℏ)) ∫ ω_g^2 χ0 ε+ cos(ω_g t)/ω^4(t) dt. With the modulation (33) and z = e^{iω_g t}, the integrand is proportional to (z^4+z^2)/(z^2+2a0 z+1)^4 dz, up to prefactor F_rad^2 Z ω_g χ0 ε_+/(ℏ Ω^4). This is not the expression in Eq. (37), which has denominator z^2(z^2+2a0 z+1)^2 and prefactor ω_g/Ω^2. The correct integrand has no pole at z=0; the residue at the inside root z1=-a0+√(a0^2-1) is suppressed as a0^{-5}, giving an overall Φ_AB ∝ √ε after the 1/Ω^4 prefactor, not the ε^{-1/2} enhancement of Eq. (40). The spurious z=0 pole in Eq. (37) is the source of the claimed large phase. Thus Eqs. (40), (68), and all subsequent detectability statements built on them are unsupported.
  2. [§IV.F, Eqs. (64)–(65), (73)] The dynamical phase is dimensionally inconsistent. The displaced-oscillator Hamiltonian in Eq. (19) has the constant energy shift -F_rad^2 Z/(2ω^2), so the correct dynamical phase is ΔΦ_dyn = -π F_rad^2/(ℏ m0 ω0^2 ω_g) (1-ε)^{-3/2}, with m0, not m0^2. The factor Z^2 in Eq. (64) (and hence m0^2 in Eq. (65)) gives ΔΦ_dyn dimensions of inverse mass rather than a dimensionless phase. This error propagates to Eq. (73), which is claimed to be dimensionless but as printed contains ω_g^2 (1/time^2). Moreover, Eq. (73) does not follow from Eqs. (68) and (65) even dimensionally. Consequently Fig. 2 is not reproducible.
  3. [§IV.E, Eqs. (56)–(60)] The reduction of the Ramsey signal to P0 = 1/2(1+cos ΔΦ) is not justified. Equations (57)–(58) assert that U_A and U_B each map the same initial motional state to the same final state up to a phase. But H_A and H_B differ by the radiation-pressure term, so their adiabatic eigenstates differ by the displacement operator U1 = exp(iF_rad Z/(ω^2ℏ)p) shown in Eq. (22). An initial state that is an eigenstate of one branch is not an eigenstate of the other, and the overlap in Eq. (56) contains a nontrivial motional (Franck–Condon-like) factor in addition to e^{iΔΦ}. The paper neither prepares branch-dependent eigenstates nor computes this overlap, so the simple interference formula is not established.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§II.A, Eq. (14)] The Lagrangian in Eq. (14) appears to miss a factor 1/2 in the −m ˙h ξ˙ ξ term relative to the geodesic-deviation equation (11) / classical equation (13). The resulting Hamiltonian (15) and the coefficients in the quantum Hamiltonian (17) should be rechecked for consistency.
  2. [§III.A, Eq. (33)] The modulation κ(t) is chosen to be exactly synchronized with the GW frequency ω_g, and the paper states this synchronization is essential. However, for an unknown source frequency no search or locking strategy is described, so the proposed scheme is narrowband. This is a practical limitation that should be acknowledged explicitly.
  3. [§IV.B, Eq. (45)] The paper acknowledges that the Hadamard operations are idealized and replaces them with weak coherent pulses, but the quantitative effect of the resulting unbalanced superposition on the visibility and on the phase extraction is not computed. The final P0 formula assumes balanced operations.
  4. [Fig. 2] The caption gives a detection threshold R_GW = 10^{-4}, while the axis label shown in the figure reads '10 3'; the threshold value should be stated consistently.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the AB-like phase is derived from the stated Hamiltonian; the cited prior work is background, not a load-bearing input.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained: the Berry and AB-like phases are obtained from the explicitly stated time-dependent Hamiltonian (17) via the standard adiabatic geometric-phase formula, with the modulation (33) and GW coupling (34) given as explicit inputs. The closed-form results (36), (40), (65), and (68) are algebraic consequences of those inputs, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The only notable self-citation is [37], used in Section II.A for the effective Lagrangian (14); however, that Lagrangian is a standard consequence of the geodesic-deviation analysis already presented in Section II, and it is also supported by independent references [46,47]. The paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem, does not smuggle in an ansatz solely via citation, and does not rename a known empirical pattern as a new organization. Possible algebraic or dimensional issues in the contour evaluation or in Eq. (73) would be correctness risks, not circularity, because they do not make the output equivalent to the input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or dimensions. Its central result depends on two ad hoc modulation parameters (Omega, nu0), a set of domain assumptions about adiabaticity, decoherence, and the COM approximation, and standard mathematical tools. There are no invented entities with independent falsifiable handles beyond the derived phases themselves.

free parameters (2)
  • Trap modulation amplitude Omega
    Defined in Eq. (33) as an externally adjustable parameter. The claimed Berry and AB phases both depend on Omega through a0 = omega0/Omega and eps = Omega^2/omega0^2.
  • Second modulation parameter nu0
    Introduced in Eq. (33) as part of kappa(t) but silently dropped in the contour evaluations, which effectively assume nu0 = 0.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Linearized gravity, TT gauge, geodesic deviation in the proper detector frame
    Used in Sec. II to derive the effective Hamiltonian (17). Assumes weak field, long wavelength, and a freely falling observer.
  • domain assumption The mirror's center-of-mass motion is an isolated quantum harmonic oscillator with negligible coupling to internal degrees of freedom
    Sec. III argues translation-invariant traps decouple COM from internal modes; this is load-bearing for coherent phase accumulation.
  • domain assumption Adiabatic theorem applies over a single GW period T with periodic Hamiltonian
    Sec. III, Eqs. (24)-(25). Requires omega_g << omega_0 and slow parameter variation; the paper assumes this synchronization.
  • ad hoc to paper The trap modulation waveform kappa(t) of Eq. (33) is chosen to synchronize with the GW frequency
    Introduced to make the contour integrals tractable; not derived from a physical mechanism, and the authors state it is 'externally tunable'.
  • standard math Standard residue theorem and harmonic oscillator eigenfunction properties
    Used in Sec. IV for the contour evaluations, including the claim that real harmonic-oscillator eigenfunctions give a vanishing adiabatic derivative.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Geometric Phases as a New Window on Gravitational Waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5NLNLB3O

@misc{pith2026250805881,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Geometric Phases as a New Window on Gravitational Waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5NLNLB3O}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.05881}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate how low-frequency gravitational waves (LFGWs), originating from distant astrophysical or cosmological sources, can induce purely quantum geometric phases in mesoscopic optomechanical systems. These phases represent subtle imprints with no classical counterpart, going beyond standard dynamical or Berry-type contributions that admit Hannay-angle analogues. Such ultra-weak waves couple to the motion of a mechanical mirror and generate distinctive phase shifts in the system's quantum state that cannot arise in any classical description. To access this effect, we propose a Ramsey-type interferometric protocol in which the photon-number states of a quantized optical mode become entangled with the mirror's center-of-mass motion, enabling a direct readout of the LFGW-induced geometric phase. This framework establishes a distinctly quantum approach for probing low-frequency gravitational wave modes, offering an alternative to conventional detection strategies based on spacetime strain.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.05881 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Ramsey interferometry protocol to detect AB-like and dynamical phases induced by gravitational waves and radiation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Log–log plot of the dimensionless phase ratio [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Can Non-Relativistic Strings Propagate Without Geometric Baggage?

    hep-th 2025-06 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

    The paper claims that standard Newton-Cartan geometry is sufficient for classical non-relativistic string propagation, making the auxiliary gauge fields of gauging-the-algebra constructions dynamically redundant.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

63 extracted references · 53 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    − i ℏ Z T 0 dt′ ˆHA(t′) # , (50) ˆUB(T ) = T exp

    + 2a0(a2 0 − 1) 2(a2 0 − 1)3/2(a0 − p a2 0 − 1)3 . (39) In the small-ε limit, with ε = 1/a2 0 ≪ 1, this simplifies to ΦAB ≈ −4πωgχ0ϵ+F 2 radZ ℏΩ2√ε + O(ε). (40) Both phase shifts scale linearly with the gravitational wave amplitude χ0ϵ+, but arises from distinct physical mechanisms: • The Berry phase originates from adiabatic squeezing induced by the LFGW...

    work page

  2. [2]

    B. P. A. et al., Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    H. Yu, D. Martynov, S. Vitale, M. Evans, D. Shoemaker, B. Barr, G. Hammond, S. Hild, J. Hough, S. Huttner, S. Rowan, B. Sorazu, L. Carbone, A. Freise, C. Mow- Lowry, K. L. Dooley, P. Fulda, H. Grote, and D. Sigg, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 141102 (2018)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    Liu, Phys

    W. Liu, Phys. Rev. D103, 103012 (2021)

    work page 2021

  5. [5]

    Armano and et al., Phys

    M. Armano and et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 231101 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    B. C. Joshi, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics13, 1 (2013), review of PTA techniques for nHz–µHz GW detection

    work page 2013

  7. [7]

    S. M. e. a. Aston,Update on Quadruple Suspension De- sign for Advanced LIGO , Tech. Rep. LIGO-P1200056-v3 (LIGO Scientific Collaboration, 2012)

    work page 2012

  8. [8]

    Sigg,Gravitational Waves (A Review of LIGO) , Tech

    D. Sigg,Gravitational Waves (A Review of LIGO) , Tech. Rep. LIGO-P980007-00-D (LIGO, 1998)

    work page 1998

Show all 63 references
  1. [9]

    Nandi and B

    P. Nandi and B. R. Majhi, Phys. Lett. B857, 138988 (2024), arXiv:2403.11253 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Nandi, B

    P. Nandi, B. R. Majhi, N. Debnath, and S. Kala, Phys. Lett. B853, 138706 (2024), arXiv:2401.02778 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  3. [11]

    K. S. Thorne, Gravitational radiation: The physics of gravitational waves and their generation, https://www.lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/lorentzchair/ thorne/Thorne1.pdf, accessed: 2025-06-24

    2025

  4. [12]

    A. A. Clerk, M. H. Devoret, S. M. Girvin, F. Marquardt, and R. J. Schoelkopf, Rev. Mod. Phys.82, 1155 (2010)

    2010

  5. [13]

    J. H. Hannay, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.18, 221 (1985)

    1985

  6. [14]

    Thompson and G

    R. Thompson and G. Papini, in5th Canadian Confer- ence on General Relativity and Relativistic Astrophysics (5CCGRRA) (1993)

    1993

  7. [15]

    Papini, in5th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation (1988)

    G. Papini, in5th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation (1988)

    1988

  8. [16]

    A. D. O’Connell, M. Hofheinz, M. Ansmann, R. C. Bial- czak, M. Lenander, E. Lucero, M. Neeley, D. Sank, H. Wang, M. Weides, J. Wenner, J. M. Martinis, and A. N. Cleland, Nature464, 697 (2010)

    2010

  9. [17]

    J. D. Teufel, T. Donner, D. Li, J. W. Harlow, M. S. Allman, K. Cicak, A. J. Sirois, J. D. Whittaker, R. W. Simmonds, and K. W. Lehnert, Nature475, 359 (2011)

    2011

  10. [18]

    J. Chan, T. P. M. Alegre, A. H. Safavi-Naeini, J. T. Hill, A. Krause, S. Gröblacher, M. Aspelmeyer, and O. Painter, Nature478, 89 (2011)

    2011

  11. [19]

    Marshall, C

    W. Marshall, C. Simon, R. Penrose, and D. Bouwmeester, Phys. Rev. Lett.91, 130401 (2003)

    2003

  12. [20]

    S. L. Adler, A. Bassi, and E. Ippoliti, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 38, 2715 (2005)

    2005

  13. [21]

    D. Miki, A. Matsumura, and K. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064090 (2024), arXiv:2311.00563 [gr-qc]

    2024

  14. [22]

    Wan, Quantum Superposition on Nano-Mechanical Oscillator, Ph.d

    C. Wan, Quantum Superposition on Nano-Mechanical Oscillator, Ph.d. thesis, Imperial College London (2017)

    2017

  15. [23]

    Matsumoto, K

    N. Matsumoto, K. Sakai, K. Hatakeyama, K. Izumi, D. Miki, S. Iso, A. Matsumura, and K. Yamamoto, arXiv preprint (2025), arXiv:2507.12899 [gr-qc]

    2025

  16. [24]

    M. V. Berry, Proc. R. Soc. A392, 45 (1984)

    1984

  17. [25]

    M. V. Berry, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 18, 15 (1985)

    1985

  18. [26]

    Aharonov and J

    Y. Aharonov and J. Anandan, Physical Review Letters 58, 1593 (1987)

    1987

  19. [27]

    Simon, Physical Review Letters51, 2167 (1983)

    B. Simon, Physical Review Letters51, 2167 (1983)

    1983

  20. [28]

    Surya and S

    S. Surya and S. Vaidya, Nucl. Phys. B523, 391 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9709170

    1998 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Chakraborty, P

    A. Chakraborty, P. Nandi, and B. Chakraborty, Nucl. Phys. B975, 115691 (2022), arXiv:2110.04730 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Biswas, P

    S. Biswas, P. Nandi, and B. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. A 102, 022231 (2020), arXiv:1911.03196 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Arovas, J

    D. Arovas, J. R. Schrieffer, and F. Wilczek, Physical Re- view Letters53, 722 (1984)

    1984

  24. [32]

    F. D. M. Haldane and Y. S. Wu, Physical Review Letters 55, 2887 (1985)

    1985

  25. [33]

    A. J. Niemi and G. W. Semenoff, Physical Review Letters 55, 927 (1985)

    1985

  26. [34]

    Nelson and L

    P. Nelson and L. Alvarez-Gaumé, Communications in Mathematical Physics99, 103 (1985)

    1985

  27. [35]

    Sonoda, Nuclear Physics B266, 410 (1986)

    H. Sonoda, Nuclear Physics B266, 410 (1986)

    1986

  28. [36]

    D. J. Thouless, M. Kohmoto, M. P. Nightingale, and M. den Nijs, Physical Review Letters49, 405 (1982)

    1982

  29. [37]

    G. W. Semenoff and P. Sodano, Physical Review Letters 57, 1195 (1986)

    1986

  30. [38]

    Nandi, S

    P. Nandi, S. Pal, S. K. Pal, and B. R. Majhi, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124069 (2023)

    2023

  31. [39]

    Aharonov and D

    Y. Aharonov and D. Bohm, Physical Review115, 485 (1959)

    1959

  32. [40]

    Ehrenberg and R

    W. Ehrenberg and R. E. Siday, Proceedings of the Phys- ical Society. Section B62, 8 (1949)

    1949

  33. [41]

    M. L. Ruggiero, Gen. Rel. Grav. 57, 52 (2025), arXiv:2407.15968 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  34. [42]

    N. F. Ramsey, Physical Review78, 695 (1950)

    1950

  35. [43]

    Maggiore, Gravitational Waves: Theory and Experi- ment, Vol

    M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves: Theory and Experi- ment, Vol. 1 (Oxford University Press, New York, 2008)

    2008

  36. [44]

    Antoniou, D

    I. Antoniou, D. Papadopoulos, and L. Perivolaropoulos, Physical Review D94, 084018 (2016)

    2016

  37. [45]

    C. W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler,Grav- itation (W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, 1973)

    1973

  38. [46]

    C. R. Galley, R. O. Behunin, and B. L. Hu, Phys. Rev. A 87, 043832 (2013)

    2013

  39. [47]

    Parikh, F

    M. Parikh, F. Wilczek, and G. Zahariade, Phys. Rev. D 104, 046021 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    A. D. Speliotopoulos, Phys. Rev. D51, 1701 (1995)

    1995

  41. [49]

    A. Saha, S. Gangopadhyay, and S. Saha, Phys. Rev. D 97, 044015 (2018)

    2018

  42. [50]

    von Lüpke, Y

    U. von Lüpke, Y. Yang, M. Bild, L. Michaud, M. Fadel, and Y. Chu, Nature Physics18, 794 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    Aspelmeyer, T

    M. Aspelmeyer, T. J. Kippenberg, and F. Marquardt, Rev. Mod. Phys.86, 1391 (2014)

    2014

  44. [52]

    D. e. a. Vitali, Phys. Rev. Lett.98, 030405 (2007)

    2007

  45. [53]

    U. e. a. Delic, Science367, 892 (2020)

    2020

  46. [54]

    Matsumura and K

    A. Matsumura and K. Yamamoto, Phys. Rev. D102, 106021 (2020), arXiv:2010.05161 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  47. [55]

    L. S. Brown, Phys. Rev. Lett.66, 527 (1991)

    1991

  48. [56]

    Ghosh and B

    G. Ghosh and B. Dutta-Roy, Phys. Rev. D 37, 1709 (1988)

    1988

  49. [57]

    C. K. Law, Phys. Rev. A51, 2537 (1995)

    1995

  50. [58]

    P. V. Heuer, M. S. Weidl, R. S. Dorst, D. B. Schaeffer, 13 S. K. P. Tripathi, S. Vincena, C. G. Constantin, C. Nie- mann, L. B. Wilson, and D. Winske, Astrophys. J. Lett. 891, L11 (2020)

    2020

  51. [59]

    Overstreet, P

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

    2022

  52. [60]

    P. W. Graham, J. M. Hogan, M. A. Kasevich, and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D 94, 104022 (2016), arXiv:1606.01860 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Carney, V

    D. Carney, V. Domcke, and N. L. Rodd, Phys. Rev. D 109, 044009 (2024)

    2024

  54. [62]

    Herceg, T

    N. Herceg, T. Jurić, A. Samsarov, I. Smolić, and K. S. Gupta, Phys. Lett. B 854, 138716 (2024), arXiv:2310.06018 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Belenchia, D

    A. Belenchia, D. M. T. Benincasa, S. Liberati, F. Gia- comini, and Časlav Brukner, Class. Quantum Grav.36, 245021 (2019), arXiv:1905.01161 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.