The Challenge of Detecting Quantum Nature of Gravitational Waves

Atsuhisa Ota; Hidetoshi Omiya; Hiroki Takeda; Takahiro Tanaka; Yu Miyauchi

The Challenge of Detecting Quantum Nature of Gravitational Waves

T0 review · 0 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Squeezing in the gravitational-wave source cannot be seen by realistic detectors; squeezing prepared in the detector can, but the signal is capped by the tiny graviton–detector coupling.

desk verdict A careful, mostly convincing no-go analysis of source-level squeezing as a gravitational-wave quantum witness; the detector-witness bound in Sec. 5 is the sharpest new piece and deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.08803 v1 pith:KX7GAFIP submitted 2026-08-09 hep-ph gr-qc

Yu Miyauchi , Hidetoshi Omiya , Atsuhisa Ota , Hiroki Takeda , Takahiro Tanaka This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phgr-qc

keywords gravitationalwavesquantumgravitysqueezedstatesgravitondetectioninflationarystochasticgravitational-wavebackgroundsqueezingwitnessGaussian

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 asks whether squeezing can serve as an observable signature that gravitational waves are quantized, and it argues that source-side squeezing cannot. For inflationary two-mode squeezed states, the mode a detector can access is one member of each correlated pair, so the reduced state is an unsqueezed thermal state. For a stochastic background, random squeezing phases across the sky cancel the off-diagonal correlations, and for an isolated source the detector's small angular footprint imposes a geometric suppression on the witness. The paper then shows that squeezing in the incident wave is not essential in principle: if the detector is prepared squeezed, a quantized gravitational wave can produce a positive squeezing witness, whereas a classical external field can only displace the detector state. The catch is that the quantum witness is bounded by the tiny graviton–detector coupling, which the paper estimates to be far below one across all frequency bands, so the realistic experimental target is quantum-coherent transduction that resolves the vacuum fluctuation of the coupled mode.

What carries the argument

The central object is the one-mode squeezing witness $W = |M| - N$, built from the second moments of a Gaussian state; $W>0$ means one quadrature variance lies below the vacuum level, and within Gaussian states this is exactly when the state cannot be written as a mixture of coherent states. The argument is carried by two mode constructions: the detector-accessible gravitational-wave mode $\hat A = \sum_\alpha c_\alpha \hat a_\alpha$ with $\sum_\alpha |c_\alpha|^2 = 1$, which projects the source state onto what the detector can see after tracing out all orthogonal modes, and the dimensionless coupling $\epsilon$, defined by $\epsilon^2 = \sum_\lambda \int d^3k\, |f_\lambda(k)|^2/(2\pi)^3$, which controls the effective beam-splitter interaction $U_{\rm eff} = \exp[\epsilon(\hat A \hat b^\dagger - \hat A^\dagger \hat b)]$ that transfers the mode to the detector. All quantitative claims, including the thermal reduction for inflation, phase cancellation for backgrounds, the geometric suppression bound for isolated sources, and the detector-side bound $W_{\tilde b} < \sin^2\epsilon/2$, follow from these two objects.

What would settle it

Construct a detector-accessible mode with nonzero overlap with both members of a correlated pair, for example $\hat A = c_1 \hat a_{i,j} + c_2 \hat a_{i,-j}$ with $|c_1|^2 + |c_2|^2 = 1$ in the inflationary two-mode squeezed state; the paper's own formulas then give a cross-correlation contribution to $M_A$ proportional to $c_1 c_2 e^{i\phi_j}\sinh r_j\cosh r_j$, so $W_A$ can become positive. Demonstrating such a positive witness in any realistic detector response would refute the claim that source squeezing is always erased by one-mode projection.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Within Gaussian states and linear coupling to a single detector mode, the paper establishes that the squeezing witness of the effective detector-accessible gravitational-wave mode cannot be positive for any of the three representative sources. The inflationary two-mode squeezed state yields $W_A = -N_A$ after tracing out the partner modes; single-mode squeezed stochastic backgrounds give $|M_A| \sim \sqrt{\Delta\Omega/4\pi}\,\sinh r\cosh r$, so the witness stays negative; and an isolated source obeys $W_A \le \Delta\Omega\,((\ell_{\rm eff}+1)^2 - 4)/(8\pi)$, suppressed by the squared ratio of detector size to source distance. The second result is that source squeezing is unnecessary: with the detector initially squeezed, the evolution $U_{\rm eff} = \exp[\epsilon(\hat A \hat b^\dagger - \hat A^\dagger \hat b)]$ yields $W_{\tilde b} = (\sin\epsilon/\epsilon)^2 |y|(|x|-|y|) > 0$ for the quantum model, while a classical $c$-number field produces only a displacement and $W_{\tilde b} \le 0$. Thus a positive detector witness rules out the classical model, but the bound $W_{\tilde b} < \sin^2\epsilon/2 \sim \epsilon^2/2$ makes the signal depend on the same weak coupling that already suppresses ordinary gravitational-wave detection.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a realistic detector is a single oscillator mode $b$ linearly coupled to one accessible wave-packet mode $A$, with all orthogonal modes traced out and states restricted to Gaussian form; a detector that could jointly access both members of a correlated pair, or use nonlinear or multimode transduction, lies outside the analysis and could in principle evade the suppression the paper finds.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Searches for nonclassicality in inflationary gravitational waves through a one-mode squeezing witness cannot succeed, however long the observation time, because the accessible mode sees a thermal marginal state.
A stochastic gravitational-wave background composed of single-mode squeezed patches will show no squeezing unless the patches share a common phase reference across the sky, which the paper argues would violate the cosmological principle.
For isolated sources, the observable witness is bounded by the detector's fractional solid angle; only emission collimated to multipole order $\ell_{\rm eff} \gtrsim (\Delta\Omega)^{-1/2} \sim 10^{21}$ could evade the suppression, and no known mechanism produces such collimation.
A detector prepared in a squeezed state can in principle certify the quantum nature of the gravitational-wave field even when the incident mode is unsqueezed or empty, because the quantum interaction produces a positive witness while a classical drive does not.
The noise-normalized coupling $\bar\epsilon \simeq h_{\rm QG}/h_{\rm th}$ is far below unity in every frequency band considered, and neither coherent integration over a year nor splitting the observing time into many trials closes the gap.

Reading between the lines

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

One direct extension is that any nonclassical witness defined in global source modes, not just squeezing, should be evaluated after projection onto the detector-coupled mode; the same single-mode coarse graining would dilute sub-Poissonian or entanglement witnesses.
A detector that jointly reads out both members of a correlated pair, for example through a nonlocal or multimode measurement, is a concrete loophole the paper leaves open; constructing such a response and computing the witness would be a testable extension of the analysis.
The coupling estimate assumes linear transduction and quantum-noise-limited readout; if a nonlinear transduction mechanism could effectively enhance the coupling beyond the linear estimate, the bound on the detector witness would still apply, but the experimental outlook would change.
The paper's separation of detection and quantum-witness criteria suggests that a detector can be sensitive enough to see gravitational-wave signals yet still be far from resolving their quantum nature; comparing these two sensitivity thresholds for each proposed detector would give a practical roadmap.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Dear colleague,

Read this paper. It is a careful theoretical argument that source-level squeezing is not an observable quantum witness in realistic detector modes, and that the only surviving route is to prepare the detector itself in a squeezed state, which yields a signal bounded by the tiny graviton–detector coupling epsilon. The cleanest new results are the geometric suppression bound for isolated sources (Eq. 4.33) and the detector-witness calculation in Sec. 5, where W < sin^2(epsilon)/2 independent of the source state. The paper is honest about its overlap with Ref. [22] and with Allen–Flanagan–Papa, and the covariance-matrix derivations are explicit and consistent.

The main point to push on is the inflationary reduction in Sec. 4.1. The paper defines the accessible mode as one member of each counter-propagating wave-packet pair. The stress-test counterexample uses the symmetric combination of the two members and shows it is single-mode squeezed. I think the paper survives: that symmetric combination is a nonlocal standing-wave mode, and a local detector with finite observation time couples to the wave packet that actually passes through it. The partner is spatially separated, so the one-mode restriction is physically justified. But the manuscript should justify this more explicitly from the Sec. 3 response function. As written, it jumps from the general A = sum c_alpha a_alpha to the restricted sum in Eq. (4.11) without explaining why the detector does not couple to the symmetric standing-wave component. That is a soft spot worth fixing, not a fatal gap.

Other soft spots are minor and stated: the isolated-source bound depends on l_eff being small (an unproven but plausible cutoff), the Gaussian/linear setup is explicitly assumed, and the coupling estimates in Table 1 are order-of-magnitude. None of these are hidden. The paper is self-contained and the math checks out.

This paper is useful to people in quantum gravity phenomenology and gravitational-wave detector design; it sharpens the experimental target from “find squeezed source radiation” to “resolve the vacuum fluctuation of the coupled mode.” I would send it to peer review. The referee should focus on Sec. 4.1’s mode-selection argument and the l_eff assumption, but neither looks fatal. My own verdict would be an accept after minor revision.

Best, [Your name]

Referee Report

0 major / 5 minor

Summary. This paper studies whether squeezing of gravitational waves can serve as an observable signature of their quantum nature. The authors define a Gaussian-state squeezing witness W=|M|-N, identify the wave-packet mode A to which a local detector linearly couples, and then evaluate W_A for three source scenarios: inflationary two-mode squeezed states, stochastic single-mode squeezed backgrounds, and isolated squeezed sources. They find that the accessible mode is thermal or phase-averaged in the first two cases and that the isolated-source witness is bounded by the geometric suppression factor ΔΩ((ℓ_eff+1)^2−4)/(8π). In the second half, the authors show that a detector initialized in a squeezed state can acquire a positive witness W_{\tilde b}<sin^2 ε/2 when coupled to a quantized gravitational-wave mode, while a classical c-number drive can only displace the state; they estimate the coupling ε from proposed detector sensitivities and find ε≪1 across all frequency bands.

Significance. The paper makes a useful and largely self-contained contribution to the quantum-gravitational-wave detection literature. Its central derivations are explicit: the witness bound in Eq. (5.12) is closed-form and parameter-free at fixed ε, and the reduction of two-mode squeezing to a thermal marginal in Sec. 4.1 connects to the standard Hawking/Unruh logic. The geometric bound in Sec. 4.3 is a clean statement of the mode-mismatch suppression. The paper also provides a clear, honest comparison with the overlapping Ref. [22]. If the results hold, they redirect experimental strategy from searching for source squeezing toward quantum-coherent transduction of the coupled vacuum mode. The main limitations—Gaussian states, linear coupling to a single detector mode, and the dependence of the isolated-source bound on the effective multipole cutoff ℓ_eff—are stated in the text.

minor comments (5)

[Sec. 4.1, Eq. (4.11)] The restriction to j>0 is the step that makes the inflationary mode thermal, so it should be derived explicitly from the detector model. Although the preceding discussion notes that the two wave packets v_{i,j} and v^*_{i,-j} propagate in opposite directions after horizon re-entry, the text does not state that this implies c_{i,-j}=0 in Eq. (3.15) for a local detector. This matters because a reader who works directly from Eq. (3.10) will see f(k)≈f(-k) for a small detector and may conclude that the symmetric mode (a_{i,j}+a_{i,-j})/√2 is the accessible mode; that mode is in fact single-mode squeezed with W_A=(1-e^{-2r})/2>0, not thermal. I believe the wave-packet argument is correct—the partner has no support at the detector when observed long after re-entry—but a clarifying sentence would remove an apparent gap in the central claim.
[Sec. 4.3, after Eq. (4.33)] The paper correctly warns that the bound is vacuous for ℓ_eff≳(ΔΩ)^{-1/2}, but the abstract and conclusion state the isolated-source suppression more unconditionally. Please add a qualifier such as 'for the expected small ℓ_eff' to the summary statements.
[Sec. 5.2, Eq. (5.12)] State explicitly that q≥1 for all parameter values; otherwise the reader must reconstruct the ranges to see why the parenthesis is positive and bounded by unity.
[Sec. 5.3, Eq. (5.26) and Table 1] The table values are consistent with h_th(T0)∼√(ω_GW S_n) only if S_n denotes the strain spectral density, i.e., the square of the column √S_n; please state this explicitly in the caption or the text.
[Throughout] Minor wording and typos: 'straight forward' should be 'straightforward' (Sec. 5.3); 'As we found that in the preceding subsection that the phase cancellation' should read 'As we found in the preceding subsection, the phase cancellation' (Sec. 4.3); and the sentence 'The observed gravitational wave mode corresponds to the gravitational waves that pass through the detector' (Sec. 4.1) would be clearer as 'corresponds to the gravitational-wave modes that pass through the detector.'

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The inflationary thermal-marginal claim is built into the definition of the accessible mode in Eq. (4.11), which excludes the -k partner and thereby forces M_A=0; the paper's other scenarios and the detector-witness bound are independent.

self definitional [Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (4.11)-(4.15)]
"To be precise, we consider a general normalized detector-accessible mode originating from a patch labeled by i, A = sum_{j>0} c_j a_{i,j}, sum_{j>0}|c_j|^2 = 1, where c_j specifies the accessible wave packet, and j>0 labels the modes that intersect the detector during the observation. ... M_A = <A^2> = 0 ... Therefore, the witness for the effective mode is W_A = -N_A."

The thermal-marginal result is already contained in the choice of A. In Eq. (3.11) the detector-response coefficients are unrestricted, and for a local/broad-beam detector f(k) is approximately even in k, so the symmetric mode (a_{i,j}+a_{i,-j})/sqrt(2) is allowed. For the two-mode squeezed state, Eqs. (3.17)-(3.18) then give N_A=sinh^2 r and M_A=e^{i phi} sinh r cosh r, hence W_A=(1-e^{-2r})/2>0. The paper obtains M_A=0 and W_A=-N_A only because Eq. (4.11) excludes the partner mode a_{i,-j} by fiat; the statement that only j>0 modes 'intersect the detector' is not derived from the response function (3.10), and a local detector couples to both k and -k. Thus the claimed disappearance of inflationary squeezing follows by construction from the chosen mode, not from detector physics.

full rationale

The identified step is the only substantial circularity. In Sec. 4.1, the paper asks whether inflationary two-mode squeezing survives projection onto the detector-accessible mode, but Eq. (4.11) defines that accessible mode to contain only one member of each (k,-k) pair, so the vanishing of M_A and the thermal result W_A=-N_A are immediate consequences of the definition rather than of the detector-response calculation. The rest of the source-squeezing analysis is independent: Sec. 4.2's phase-randomization argument and Sec. 4.3's angular-overlap suppression bound do not rely on the questioned restriction. The detector-witness analysis in Sec. 5 derives W_b^{(Q)} from the exact unitary evolution, with no fitted parameter, and the coupling estimates in Table 1 use external strain-sensitivity numbers as inputs. The disclosed overlap with Ref. [22] is independent prior work, not a self-citation loop. Hence the paper has substantial self-contained content, but the headline inflationary claim is one 'prediction' that reduces by construction to the chosen mode definition, warranting a partial-circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard quantum-optics tools and physical modeling assumptions; no free parameters are fitted to data. The only adjustable model parameter is the multipole cutoff \ell_eff, whose value controls the isolated-source bound.

free parameters (1)

Effective multipole cutoff \ell_eff
Introduced in Sec. 4.3 to truncate the spherical-harmonic expansion of the isolated source; the geometric suppression bound depends on it, and the paper assumes \ell_eff is small for known sources.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Gaussian states and the squeezing witness W = |M| - N are a sufficient probe of nonclassicality; non-Gaussian signatures are not considered.
Sec. 2 restricts the analysis to Gaussian states and defines W as the witness; the paper explicitly acknowledges that quantumness beyond W is possible in Sec. 2.
domain assumption The gravitational-wave detector is a single harmonic oscillator mode b coupled linearly to the gravitational-wave operator under the rotating-wave approximation.
Sec. 3, Eqs. (3.6) and (3.13); the authors assert nonlinear or multi-mode couplings would not improve sensitivity but do not prove it.
domain assumption Inflationary perturbations produce a two-mode squeezed state with phi_k approximately 0 and r_k much greater than 1, and the two members of each pair propagate in opposite directions so only one is accessible to a local detector.
Sec. 4.1, Eqs. (4.1) and (4.10); based on standard inflation literature [6-8].
domain assumption Squeezing phases of stochastic background patches are random and mutually incoherent.
Sec. 4.2, paragraph preceding Eq. (4.22); justified by the cosmological principle, but a non-uniform phase distribution would change the result.
domain assumption The classical reference model is a prescribed c-number external field, not a dynamical classical-quantum theory.
Sec. 5.1 and footnote 1; mixed classical-quantum dynamics [20,21] are explicitly excluded.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Challenge of Detecting Quantum Nature of Gravitational Waves." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KX7GAFIP

@misc{pith2026260808803,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Challenge of Detecting Quantum Nature of Gravitational Waves},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KX7GAFIP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.08803}
}

read the original abstract

We investigate whether squeezing can provide an observable signature of quantum gravitational waves. Because a realistic detector couples only to a particular wave-packet mode, squeezing in global source modes need not remain observable. We show that inflationary two-mode squeezing reduces to an unsqueezed thermal state in the accessible one-mode sector, phase incoherence washes out squeezing in stochastic backgrounds, and the limited coverage of the solid angle of detectors strongly suppresses squeezing from isolated sources. We then show that source squeezing is not essential, {\it i.e.}, a quantized gravitational wave can generate a positive squeezing witness if the detector state is initially prepared in a squeezed state, whereas a classical external gravitational field cannot, producing only a displacement. However, the resulting signal is bounded by the extremely small graviton--detector coupling. Thus, detector squeezing can remove the need for squeezed incident waves, but not the suppression caused by weak gravitational interaction.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

[22]

Suppressed Quantum Effects of Weakly Coupled Waves

Y. Bao, D.Y. Cheong, N.L. Rodd, J. Takach, L.-T. Wang and K. Zhou,Suppressed Quantum Effects of Weakly Coupled Waves,2607.27313

work page Pith review arXiv
[1]

Dyson,Is a graviton detectable?,Int

F. Dyson,Is a graviton detectable?,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28(2013) 1330041

2013
[2]

Tobar, S.K

G. Tobar, S.K. Manikandan, T. Beitel and I. Pikovski,Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing,Nature Commun.15(2024) 7229 [2308.15440]

arXiv 2024
[3]

Carney, V

D. Carney, V. Domcke and N.L. Rodd,Graviton detection and the quantization of gravity, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 044009 [2308.12988]

arXiv 2024
[4]

Glauber,Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field,Phys

R.J. Glauber,Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field,Phys. Rev.131(1963) 2766

1963
[5]

Sudarshan,Equivalence of semiclassical and quantum mechanical descriptions of statistical light beams,Phys

E.C.G. Sudarshan,Equivalence of semiclassical and quantum mechanical descriptions of statistical light beams,Phys. Rev. Lett.10(1963) 277

work page 1963
[6]

Polarski and A.A

D. Polarski and A.A. Starobinsky,Semiclassicality and decoherence of cosmological perturbations,Class. Quant. Grav.13(1996) 377 [gr-qc/9504030]

arXiv 1996
[7]

L.P. Grishchuk,The Detectability of relic (squeezed) gravitational waves by laser interferometers, inInternational School of Astrophysics, Daniel Chalonge: 7th Course: Current Topics in Astrofundamental Physics (A NATO Advanced Study Institute Euroconference), pp. 131–137, 10, 1998 [gr-qc/9810055]

work page Pith review arXiv 1998

Show all 35 references

[8]

Allen, E.E

B. Allen, E.E. Flanagan and M.A. Papa,Is the squeezing of relic gravitational waves produced by inflation detectable?,Phys. Rev. D61(2000) 024024 [gr-qc/9906054]

2000 arXiv
[9]

Kanno, J

S. Kanno, J. Soda and A. Taniguchi,Coherent State Description of Gravitational Waves from Binary Black Holes,Phys. Rev. Lett.136(2026) 061404 [2508.17947]

2026
[10]

Manikandan and F

S.K. Manikandan and F. Wilczek,Squeezed Quasinormal Modes from Nonlinear Gravitational Effects,2508.03380

arXiv
[11]

A. Das, M. Parikh, F. Wilczek and R. Wutte,Squeezed States in Gravity,2512.20601
[12]

Parikh, F

M. Parikh, F. Wilczek and G. Zahariade,Quantum Mechanics of Gravitational Waves,Phys. Rev. Lett.127(2021) 081602 [2010.08205]

2021 arXiv
[13]

Kanno, J

S. Kanno, J. Soda and J. Tokuda,Indirect detection of gravitons through quantum entanglement,Phys. Rev. D104(2021) 083516 [2103.17053]

2021 arXiv
[14]

Hertzberg and J.A

M.P. Hertzberg and J.A. Litterer,Bound on quantum fluctuations in gravitational waves from LIGO-Virgo,JCAP03(2023) 009 [2112.12159]

2023 arXiv
[15]

Kanno and J

S. Kanno and J. Soda,Detecting nonclassical primordial gravitational waves with Hanbury-Brown–Twiss interferometry,Phys. Rev. D99(2019) 084010 [1810.07604]

2019 arXiv
[16]

Kanno, J

S. Kanno, J. Soda and A. Taniguchi,Binary gravitational waves as probes of quantum graviton states,Phys. Rev. D113(2026) 123542 [2510.23326]

2026 arXiv
[17]

Manikandan and F

S.K. Manikandan and F. Wilczek,Detector correlations and null tests of the coherent state hypothesis,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A41(2026) 2642001 [2508.03367]

2026 arXiv
[18]

Toccacelo, T

K. Toccacelo, T. Beitel, U.L. Andersen and I. Pikovski,Quantum State Characterization of Gravitational Waves via Graviton Counting Statistics,2602.09125. – 23 –
[19]

Ikeda, Y

T. Ikeda, Y. Kaku, S. Kanno and J. Soda,Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion,Phys. Rev. D112(2025) 103504 [2507.01609]

2025 arXiv
[20]

Oppenheim,A Postquantum Theory of Classical Gravity?,Phys

J. Oppenheim,A Postquantum Theory of Classical Gravity?,Phys. Rev. X13(2023) 041040 [1811.03116]

2023 arXiv
[21]

Tomizuka and H

S. Tomizuka and H. Takeda,Emergence of Non-Markovian Classical-Quantum Dynamics from Decoherence,2604.06891

arXiv
[23]

Agarwal,Quantum Optics, Cambridge University Press (2013)

G.S. Agarwal,Quantum Optics, Cambridge University Press (2013)

2013
[24]

Weedbrook, S

C. Weedbrook, S. Pirandola, R. Garc ´ ıa-Patr´ on, N.J. Cerf, T.C. Ralph, J.H. Shapiro et al., Gaussian quantum information,Rev. Mod. Phys.84(2012) 621 [1110.3234]

2012 arXiv
[25]

Williamson,On the algebraic problem concerning the normal forms of linear dynamical systems,American Journal of Mathematics58(1936) 141

J. Williamson,On the algebraic problem concerning the normal forms of linear dynamical systems,American Journal of Mathematics58(1936) 141

1936
[26]

Dorlis, N.E

P. Dorlis, N.E. Mavromatos, S. Sarkar and S.-N. Vlachos,Superradiant Axionic Black-Hole Clouds as Seeds for Graviton Squeezing,Phys. Rev. Lett.135(2025) 151501 [2507.01689]

2025
[27]

Janssen et al.,Gravitational wave astronomy with the SKA,PoSAASKA14(2015) 037 [1501.00127]

G. Janssen et al.,Gravitational wave astronomy with the SKA,PoSAASKA14(2015) 037 [1501.00127]

2015 arXiv
[28]

Robson, N.J

T. Robson, N.J. Cornish and C. Liu,The construction and use of LISA sensitivity curves, Class. Quant. Grav.36(2019) 105011 [1803.01944]

2019 arXiv
[29]

Harry, P

G.M. Harry, P. Fritschel, D.A. Shaddock, W. Folkner and E.S. Phinney,Laser interferometry for the big bang observer,Class. Quant. Grav.23(2006) 4887

2006
[30]

Evans et al.,A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community,2109.09882

M. Evans et al.,A Horizon Study for Cosmic Explorer: Science, Observatories, and Community,2109.09882

arXiv
[31]

Srivastava, D

V. Srivastava, D. Davis, K. Kuns, P. Landry, S. Ballmer, M. Evans et al.,Science-driven Tunable Design of Cosmic Explorer Detectors,Astrophys. J.931(2022) 22 [2201.10668]

2022 arXiv
[32]

Aggarwal, G.P

N. Aggarwal, G.P. Winstone, M. Teo, M. Baryakhtar, S.L. Larson, V. Kalogera et al., Searching for New Physics with a Levitated-Sensor-Based Gravitational-Wave Detector, Phys. Rev. Lett.128(2022) 111101 [2010.13157]

2022 arXiv
[33]

Nishizawa et al.,Laser-interferometric Detectors for Gravitational Wave Background at 100 MHz: Detector Design and Sensitivity,Phys

A. Nishizawa et al.,Laser-interferometric Detectors for Gravitational Wave Background at 100 MHz: Detector Design and Sensitivity,Phys. Rev. D77(2008) 022002 [0710.1944]

2008 arXiv
[34]

Domcke, S.A.R

V. Domcke, S.A.R. Ellis and J. Kopp,Dielectric haloscopes as gravitational wave detectors, Phys. Rev. D111(2025) 035031 [2409.06462]

2025 arXiv
[35]

Y. Kahn, J. Sch¨ utte-Engel and T. Trickle,Searching for high-frequency gravitational waves with phonons,Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 096023 [2311.17147]. – 24 –

2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [22]

Suppressed Quantum Effects of Weakly Coupled Waves

Y. Bao, D.Y. Cheong, N.L. Rodd, J. Takach, L.-T. Wang and K. Zhou,Suppressed Quantum Effects of Weakly Coupled Waves,2607.27313

work page Pith review arXiv

[2] [1]

Dyson,Is a graviton detectable?,Int

F. Dyson,Is a graviton detectable?,Int. J. Mod. Phys. A28(2013) 1330041

2013

[3] [2]

Tobar, S.K

G. Tobar, S.K. Manikandan, T. Beitel and I. Pikovski,Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing,Nature Commun.15(2024) 7229 [2308.15440]

arXiv 2024

[4] [3]

Carney, V

D. Carney, V. Domcke and N.L. Rodd,Graviton detection and the quantization of gravity, Phys. Rev. D109(2024) 044009 [2308.12988]

arXiv 2024

[5] [4]

Glauber,Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field,Phys

R.J. Glauber,Coherent and incoherent states of the radiation field,Phys. Rev.131(1963) 2766

1963

[6] [5]

Sudarshan,Equivalence of semiclassical and quantum mechanical descriptions of statistical light beams,Phys

E.C.G. Sudarshan,Equivalence of semiclassical and quantum mechanical descriptions of statistical light beams,Phys. Rev. Lett.10(1963) 277

work page 1963

[7] [6]

Polarski and A.A

D. Polarski and A.A. Starobinsky,Semiclassicality and decoherence of cosmological perturbations,Class. Quant. Grav.13(1996) 377 [gr-qc/9504030]

arXiv 1996

[8] [7]

L.P. Grishchuk,The Detectability of relic (squeezed) gravitational waves by laser interferometers, inInternational School of Astrophysics, Daniel Chalonge: 7th Course: Current Topics in Astrofundamental Physics (A NATO Advanced Study Institute Euroconference), pp. 131–137, 10, 1998 [gr-qc/9810055]

work page Pith review arXiv 1998