Structure and statistical properties of the semiclassical Einstein equations

Daniel R. Terno

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Structure and statistical properties of the semiclassical Einstein equations

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The semiclassical Einstein equation predicts only the expected geometry, not the actual one.

desk verdict Plausible formal equivalence, but the statistical reading of the left-hand side is an extra postulate, not a consequence of the derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.18213 v1 pith:PR6TGEPC submitted 2024-12-24 gr-qc quant-ph

Daniel R. Terno This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcquant-ph

keywords semiclassicalgravityquantum-classicalhybridEinsteintensorexpectationvaluestochasticlarge-NlimittwoPlanckconstantsproperandimpropermixturesmeasurementproblem

topics The Measurement Problem

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 the semiclassical Einstein equation, in which gravity is sourced by the expectation value of the quantum energy-momentum tensor, must be read statistically: the left-hand side is the expected Einstein tensor given the quantum state of matter, not the geometry realized in any single run. The argument treats the equation as a quantum-classical hybrid, introducing separate Planck constants for gravity and matter and taking the classical limit for gravity alone. Two standard derivations, one based on loop expansions around a classical background and one on a large number of matter fields, are shown to be formally the same limiting procedure. If this reading is correct, the 1981 torsion-balance experiment that seemed to falsify semiclassical gravity is no longer a falsification, and stochastic gravity becomes a necessary next step for describing fluctuations.

What carries the argument

The central device is a two-Planck-constant hybrid construction. One formally writes the combined gravity-matter action with separate constants $\hbar_g$ and $\hbar$, then sets $\hbar = N\hbar_g$ and takes $N \to \infty$, sending $\exp(i(S_g+S_m)/\hbar)$ to $\exp(i(NS_g+S_m)/\hbar)$. This rescaling suppresses graviton loop contributions relative to matter loops, so the metric becomes classical while matter stays quantum. The same scaling organizes the large-$N$ derivation and the loop-expansion derivation into one limit, and it is what forces the resulting equation to have the form $\langle G_{\mu\nu}\rangle_\psi = 8\pi\langle \hat{T}_{\mu\nu}\rangle^{\mathrm{ren}}_\psi$.

What would settle it

Observing gravitationally mediated entanglement between two matter systems that interact only gravitationally would settle the question, because the semiclassical equation lacks matter-gravity entanglement and cannot produce such an effect.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is that the semiclassical Einstein equation is an equation for an expectation value. Starting from a quantum-classical hybrid with separate Planck constants for gravity and matter, the author takes the classical limit of gravity alone and shows that both familiar derivations, the one-loop matter expansion around a classical gravitational background and the many-matter-field large-$N$ limit, collapse into the same limiting equation. The left-hand side is therefore $\langle G_{\mu\nu}\rangle_\psi = 8\pi\langle \hat{T}_{\mu\nu}\rangle^{\mathrm{ren}}_\psi$, an average over the matter state, so the equation specifies the expected geometry rather than the geometry of any individual history. This reading, the paper argues, makes the equation consistent with the torsion-balance experiment and with the indistinguishability of proper and improper mixtures, and it turns stochastic gravity from an optional refinement into a requirement.

Load-bearing premise

The whole argument rests on treating the formal two-Planck-constant limit, where the gravitational Planck constant is written as $\hbar_g = \hbar/N$ with $N \to \infty$, as a physically valid classical limit of gravity rather than as a bookkeeping device.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The results of the 1981 Cavendish torsion-balance experiment become consistent with semiclassical gravity, because the equation does not predict the geometry of a single run.
Proper and improper mixtures of matter states produce the same gravitational prediction, so the two cannot be distinguished gravitationally.
The measurement-collapse problem with the Bianchi identity disappears, since a discontinuous state update changes an expectation value rather than a realized geometry.
Stochastic gravity is required to capture metric fluctuations beyond the mean, even if all gravitational fluctuations originate from quantum matter.
Sharp, low-dispersion gravitational predictions from the semiclassical equation are possible only under special conditions, typically states with small energy-momentum variance.
If the equation is only an expectation value, cosmological backreaction becomes intrinsic: the averaged metric need not satisfy the Einstein equations even when every realization does.

Reading between the lines

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

The $N \to \infty$ limit is effectively a mean-field or thermodynamic limit, so fluctuation corrections should appear at order $1/N$, suggesting that stochastic gravity can be derived systematically as the next-order term in the same two-Planck-constant expansion.
The statistical reading makes the semiclassical equation harder to falsify, shifting experimental strategy from single-realization field measurements toward ensemble-level tests or entanglement-based probes of gravitational coherence.
A tabletop test of gravitationally mediated entanglement, if ever realized, would directly discriminate against the semiclassical equation, since the equation lacks matter-gravity entanglement; the paper flags this possibility but leaves the low-energy regime to future work.
The indistinguishability of proper and improper mixtures, which the paper derives for gravity, may extend to other mean-field hybrid theories and could be tested in analogue or non-gravitational hybrid systems.

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

The paper makes a modest formal point and then overreaches. The point that the Hartle-Horowitz tree-level/one-loop derivation and the large-N derivation of the semiclassical Einstein equation are equivalent as partial classical limits (via two Planck constants, ℏg = ℏ/N) is clearly presented and, as far as I know, not stated that way before. The toy model argument for graviton-loop suppression is clean. That part is worth having.

The problem is Section III. The derivation in Section II is a stationary-phase argument: as N→∞, the path integral is dominated by a single saddle-point metric, and that metric satisfies G[g*] = 8π⟨T⟩ψ. There is no ensemble of geometries, no distribution of G, and no distinction between "actual" and "expectation value." Equation (14), which asserts ⟨G⟩ψ = 8π⟨T⟩ψ, does not follow from the path integral; it is an interpretive postulate about how measurement and collapse relate to geometry. The paper presents it as a consequence, which is the load-bearing step for the claimed reconciliation with Page–Geilker.

The discussion of proper versus improper mixtures is interesting, but it depends on that unproven postulate. Similarly, the claim that stochastic gravity is a "necessary extension" is too strong; it's one possible way to model fluctuations, not a logical consequence of the SCE.

The formal scaling ℏg = ℏ/N is imported from Caro-Salcedo without independent justification. That might be fine, but it deserves scrutiny: does this partial classical limit reproduce the same physics as a genuine ℏ→0 limit of gravity? The paper sets that aside.

Overall: the equivalence result is plausible and well-argued; the statistical interpretation is not forced. A referee should ask whether Eq. (14) is a derivation or an assumption. If it's an assumption, the paper still has value as a clear framing of the hybrid limit, but it doesn't kill the Page–Geilker objection as cleanly as claimed.

I'd send it to peer review—the core observation deserves airing—but with a request for a major revision that distinguishes the derived part from the interpretive part.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the two standard derivations of the semiclassical Einstein equation (SCE), namely the tree-level/one-loop graviton expansion and the large-N limit with GN fixed, are formally equivalent when viewed as quantum-classical hybrids with a vanishing gravitational Planck constant. From this equivalence the author concludes that the left-hand side of the SCE should be read as the expectation value ⟨Gμν⟩ψ of the Einstein tensor, not as the actual geometry in a single realization. The paper then applies this statistical reading to the Page–Geilker experiment and to proper versus improper mixtures, and argues that stochastic gravity is a necessary extension.

Significance. If the statistical interpretation were actually forced by the derivation, the paper would resolve a long-standing interpretational debate and would provide a clean motivation for stochastic semiclassical gravity. The presentation is clear and the scaling argument in the toy model is instructive; the explicit link to Ballentine's earlier proposal is useful. However, the paper's main conceptual step—the derivation of Eq. (14) from the path-integral analysis—is not established, so the significance is currently conditional rather than immediate.

major comments (4)

[Section III, Eq. (14)] The central claim that the left-hand side of the SCE is the expectation value ⟨Gμν⟩ψ is not derived from the preceding path-integral analysis. In Eq. (11), the amplitude is exp(iNΓ[g]/ℏ), so for large N the functional integral is dominated by a unique saddle-point metric g*; the realized geometry is that of g*, with G[g*] = 8π⟨T̂⟩renψ. There is no ensemble of geometries and no stochastic element in this limit. Equation (14) is therefore an independent interpretive postulate, not a consequence of the derivation. To make the Page–Geilker agreement in Section III follow, the paper would need a model of state reduction that maps the pre-measurement state to branch geometries.
[Section II, Eq. (13)] The formal equivalence of the two derivation methods rests on the two-Planck-constant limit ℏg = ℏ/N with N→∞. This scaling is imported from Ref. [24] and is not justified within the paper as a genuine classical limit of gravity. In particular, the behavior of gauge fixing, the Faddeev–Popov determinant, and the renormalized counterterms in Sg under this limit is not discussed. The statement in Section II that 'suppression of the non-classical gravitational contributions becomes obvious' is an assertion rather than a derivation, and Section IV's stochastic conclusion inherits this gap.
[Section III, Eqs. (22)–(26)] The treatment of mixtures is under-specified. Equation (22) defines ⟨G⟩ρ = 8π tr(ρ T̂)ren by fiat, but the ensemble of realized geometries for a mixed state is not derived; for an improper mixture obtained by tracing out auxiliary degrees of freedom, the reduced density matrix does not by itself select a set of actual geometries. Without a decoherence or measurement model, the claimed operational indistinguishability between proper and improper mixtures is not a consequence of Eq. (14).
[Section IV, first paragraph] The statement that 'the Einstein tensor is fundamentally a stochastic quantity' is not supported by the preceding derivation: the large-N limit in Eqs. (10)–(13) produces a single saddle-point metric, not a distribution over metrics. Stochastic gravity may be a necessary extension to capture fluctuations, but that conclusion requires an additional argument, such as a 1/N expansion around the saddle point, which the paper does not provide.

minor comments (5)

[Section II, after Eq. (7)] The sentence 'The N identical massless conformably coupled real scalar fields,' is a fragment; the verb is missing.
[Section III, after Eq. (17)] The expression for ⟨T̂μν⟩(t) is missing a parenthesis: it should read (1−e−λt)⟨1|T̂μν|1⟩ rather than 1−e−λt⟨1|T̂μν|1⟩.
[Section III, after Eq. (19)] There are several typographical errors: 'exsections' should likely be 'expectations', 'appopriate' should be 'appropriate', and 'indeicates' should be 'indicates'.
[Section III, after Eq. (23)] The notation 'wi /greaterorequalslant0' is a rendering error and should read 'wi ≥ 0'.
[Section II, Eq. (8)] The functional Yφ′′,φ′[g] is defined only implicitly through the exponential; it would be clearer to state explicitly that it is the (one-loop) matter effective action per field.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The paper's central statistical interpretation is not derived: Eq. (14) redefines the SCE's left-hand side as an expectation value, making the claimed consistency with Page–Geilker true by construction rather than by the derivation.

self definitional [Section III, Eq. (14) and the preceding paragraph]
"The SCE is obtained by calculating expectation values of various correlation functions and then taking the limit ℏg → 0. Hence, the meaning of the left-hand side of the SCE is: ⟨Gµν ⟩ψ = 8π⟨ˆTµν ⟩ren ψ . (14) This interpretation was posited by Ballentine in his commentary on the Page–Geilker experiment [29]. Here, we see that this is a direct consequence of the way the SCE is derived."

The derivation in Section II is a large-N saddle-point path integral (Eq. 11) that yields a unique metric, so G is a sharp classical value satisfying G=8π⟨T⟩. No ensemble of geometries is present. Eq. (14) replaces G by ⟨Gμν⟩ψ on the left-hand side, which is a definition of what the left-hand side is said to mean, not a result of the path integral. All subsequent conclusions—agreement with Page–Geilker, absence of the Bianchi-identity problem, and indistinguishability of proper and improper mixtures—rest on this redefinition, so they hold by construction rather than by derivation.

full rationale

The formal equivalence of the two derivation methods (tree-level gravitons and large-N) is demonstrated by a self-contained rescaling argument and is not circular; it reduces to a known stationary-phase calculation. However, the paper's distinctive conclusion that the left-hand side of the SCE is an expectation value ⟨Gμν⟩ψ is not a consequence of that derivation. The path integral has a single saddle-point metric, so the Einstein tensor is not a stochastic variable. Eq. (14) is introduced as 'the meaning of the left-hand side,' which is a definitional move, and the paper then treats this definition as a derived result. Because the main physical claims (e.g., consistency with the Page–Geilker experiment) depend on this redefinition, they are true by construction. No fitted parameters and no load-bearing self-citations were found, so the circularity is partial and confined to the interpretive overlay.

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

The central claim rests on the hybrid quantum-classical framework and the large-N/ℏg→0 power-counting, not on any fitted constants. The only introduced quantities are definitional (two Planck constants related by ℏ=Nℏg). No new entities are postulated.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Gravity can be treated classically while matter is quantum in a consistent hybrid scheme with two Planck constants.
The entire derivation of equivalence relies on the two-Planck-constant formalism of Caro-Salcedo [24], cited in Section I and used in Section II around Eq. (13).
domain assumption In the N→∞ (or ℏg→0) limit, graviton loops are suppressed so that only matter loops contribute.
The toy-model power counting in Section II, Eqs. (10)-(13), is used to show that graviton propagators vanish while matter fields remain quantum.
standard math Standard path-integral and renormalization results for quantum fields on curved spacetime are taken as background.
The transition amplitude Eq. (4), the effective action Y in Eq. (8), and the renormalized constants in Eq. (6) are imported from Refs. [18,19,20,28] without re-derivation.
domain assumption Operational indistinguishability of proper and improper mixtures, per Fedida and Kent [26], holds in this setting.
Section III uses this to argue SCE cannot distinguish the two mixture types around Eq. (25).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Structure and statistical properties of the semiclassical Einstein equations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PR6TGEPC

@misc{pith2026241218213,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Structure and statistical properties of the semiclassical Einstein equations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PR6TGEPC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.18213}
}

read the original abstract

We treat the semiclassical Einstein equation as a quantum-classical hybrid and demonstrate the formal equivalence of its two derivation methods. This approach identifies the left-hand side of the equation as the expectation value of the Einstein tensor given the state of matter, and not its actual value in each realization of the set-up. As a result, standard criticisms of semiclassical gravity do not apply, and stochastic gravity emerges as a necessary extension

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

Mixture equivalence principles and post-quantum theories of gravity
gr-qc 2024-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Møller-Rosenfeld semiclassical gravity, which averages over quantum mixtures, is argued to be a different theory from the semiclassical limit of unitary quantum gravity, which would collapse to a single branch after a...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

[24]

J. B. Hartle and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. A 24, 257 (1981)

work page 1981
[1]

(20) Then it is possible to deﬁne the connection ¯Γλ µν and other objects that are based on the averaged metric

results in ⟨Gµ ν ⟩ = ⟨Rµ ν ⟩ − 1 2δµ ν ⟨gλρRλρ ⟩ = 8π⟨Tµ ν ⟩ (19) One can focus on the averaged metric introduces ¯gµν := ⟨gµν ⟩, and introduce δgµν := gµν − ¯gµν. (20) Then it is possible to deﬁne the connection ¯Γλ µν and other objects that are based on the averaged metric. Then the aver- ageds Einstein equations can be written as ¯Gµν +δGµν = 8π⟨Tµν ⟩,...

work page
[2]

This derivation further indicates that, strictl y speak- ing, only a statistical interpretation of the Einstein tens or as ⟨Gµν ⟩ψ is viable

are equivalent when viewed as derivations of a hybrid equation. This derivation further indicates that, strictl y speak- ing, only a statistical interpretation of the Einstein tens or as ⟨Gµν ⟩ψ is viable. Subsequently, the generalization of Eq.( 2) becomes straightforward. In this generalized form, the SCE are more challenging to falsify: they are automa...

work page
[3]

We adopt the analysis of [ 19], which provided the original realization of this approach

emerges as the limiting equation. We adopt the analysis of [ 19], which provided the original realization of this approach. Consider the transition ampl itude between two states speciﬁed by a particular three-geometry , represented as a three-metric 3g in a speciﬁed gauge, and the values of N scalar ﬁeld conﬁgurations ⃗φ = {φj}N j=1 on the initial and ﬁna...

work page
[4]

no-collapse

proceeds in two step. First, for a given metric and for each ﬁeld conﬁguration the functionalYφ ′′,φ ′[g] via exp(iYφ ′′,φ ′[g]) := ⟨φ′′|φ′⟩ g = ∫ D[φ]eiSm[g,φ ]/ ℏ. (8) 3 Then the full amplitude becomes ⟨3 g′′,⃗φ′′|3g′,⃗φ′⟩ = ∫ Σ ′′ Σ ′ ˘D[g] exp ( i ℏ ( Sg[g] +NYφ ′′,φ ′[g] ) ) . (9) Taking the N → ∞ limit requires rescaling of the gravita- tional coupl...

work page
[5]

Once the Cavendish balance is in the future light cone of the random choice of the matter con- ﬁguration it will respond in one of the two possible distinct ways

holds. Once the Cavendish balance is in the future light cone of the random choice of the matter con- ﬁguration it will respond in one of the two possible distinct ways. On the other hand, in case of the improper mixture, the balnce will behave as (time-dependent) weighted average of the two responses. Such behaviour would allow to distinguish between two...

work page
[6]

Belenchia, M

A. Belenchia, M. Letizia, S. Liberati, and E. Di Casola, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 036001 (2018)

work page 2018
[7]

De Felice and S

A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Liv. Rev. Rel. 13, 3 (2010)

work page 2010

Show all 38 references

[8]

Kiefer, Quantum Gravity (Oxford University Press, Cam- bridge, England, 2012, 3rd edition)

K. Kiefer, Quantum Gravity (Oxford University Press, Cam- bridge, England, 2012, 3rd edition)

2012
[9]

Hu and E

B.-L. Hu and E. V erdaguer,Semiclassical and Stochastic Grav- ity: Quantum Field Effects on Curved Spacetime (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2020)

2020
[10]

Wallace, Studies Hist

D. Wallace, Studies Hist. Phil. Sci. 94, 31 (2022)

2022
[11]

Abdalla et al., J

E. Abdalla et al., J. High Energy. Astrop. 34, 49 (2022)

2022
[12]

P . K. Alureet al., Class. Quantum Grav. 40, 094001 (2023)

2023
[13]

D. L. Wiltshire, Class. Quantum Grav. 28, 16400 (2011)

2011
[14]

Padmanabhan, Theoretical Astrophyics V olume I: Astrophys- ical Processes (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Eng- land, 2020)

T. Padmanabhan, Theoretical Astrophyics V olume I: Astrophys- ical Processes (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Eng- land, 2020)

2020
[15]

Marletto and V

C. Marletto and V . V edral,arXiv:2410.07262 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[16]

Tobar, S

G. Tobar, S. K. Manikandan, T. Beitel and I. Pikovski, Nature Comm. 15, 7229 (2024)

2024
[17]

Boucher, and J

W. Boucher, and J. Traschen, Phys. Rev. D 37, 3522 (1988)

1988
[18]

Peres and D

A. Peres and D. R. Terno, Phys. Rev. A 63, 022101 (2001)

2001
[19]

D. R. Terno, arXiv:2309.05014 (2023)

2023 arXiv
[20]

B.-L. Hu, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 504, 012021 (2014)

2014
[21]

Møller, in A

C. Møller, in A. Lichnerowicz and M. A. Tonnelat (eds.), Les th´ eories relativistes de la gravitation(Editions du CNRS, Paris, 1962), p. 15

1962
[22]

Rosenfeld, Nucl

L. Rosenfeld, Nucl. Phys. 40, 353 (1963)

1963
[23]

Parker and D

L. Parker and D. Toms, Quantum Field Theory in Curved Spacetime (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2009)

2009
[25]

´E. ´E. Flanagan and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 54, 6233 (1996)

1996
[26]

S. Murk, R. B. Mann, and D. R. Terno, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 31, 2230015 (2022)

2022
[27]

T. D. Galley, F. Giacomini, and J. H. Selby, Quantum 7, 1142 (2023)

2023
[28]

Barcelo, R

C. Barcelo, R. Carballo-Rubio, R., L. J. Garay, and R. Gomez- Escalante, Phys. Rev. A 86, 042120 (2012)

2012
[29]

Caro and L

J. Caro and L. L. Salcedo, Phys. Rev. A 60, 842 (1999)

1999
[30]

D. N. Page and C. D. Geilker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 979 (1981)

1981
[31]

Fedida and A

S. Fedida and A. Kent, arXiv:2412.12288 (2024)

2024 arXiv
[32]

Anastopoulos and B.-L

C. Anastopoulos and B.-L. Hu, New J. Phys. 16, 085007 (2014)

2014
[33]

L. H. Ford, arXiv:gr-qc/0504096 (2005)

2005 arXiv
[34]

L. E. Ballentine, Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 6233 (1982)

1982
[35]

Busch, P

P . Busch, P . Lahti, J.-P . Pellonpaa, and K. Ylinen, Quantum Measurement, (Springer, Cham, Switzerland, 2016)

2016
[36]

W. G. Unruh, in S. M. Christensen (ed.), Quantum theory of gravity (Adam Hilger, Bristol, England,1984), p. 234

1984
[37]

Eppley and E

K. Eppley and E. Hannah, Found. Phys. 7, 51 (1977)

1977
[38]

Stephani, D

H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M. MacCallum, C. Hoenselaers, and E. Herlt, Exact Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equations , 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2003)

2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [24]

J. B. Hartle and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. A 24, 257 (1981)

work page 1981

[2] [1]

(20) Then it is possible to deﬁne the connection ¯Γλ µν and other objects that are based on the averaged metric

results in ⟨Gµ ν ⟩ = ⟨Rµ ν ⟩ − 1 2δµ ν ⟨gλρRλρ ⟩ = 8π⟨Tµ ν ⟩ (19) One can focus on the averaged metric introduces ¯gµν := ⟨gµν ⟩, and introduce δgµν := gµν − ¯gµν. (20) Then it is possible to deﬁne the connection ¯Γλ µν and other objects that are based on the averaged metric. Then the aver- ageds Einstein equations can be written as ¯Gµν +δGµν = 8π⟨Tµν ⟩,...

work page

[3] [2]

This derivation further indicates that, strictl y speak- ing, only a statistical interpretation of the Einstein tens or as ⟨Gµν ⟩ψ is viable

are equivalent when viewed as derivations of a hybrid equation. This derivation further indicates that, strictl y speak- ing, only a statistical interpretation of the Einstein tens or as ⟨Gµν ⟩ψ is viable. Subsequently, the generalization of Eq.( 2) becomes straightforward. In this generalized form, the SCE are more challenging to falsify: they are automa...

work page

[4] [3]

We adopt the analysis of [ 19], which provided the original realization of this approach

emerges as the limiting equation. We adopt the analysis of [ 19], which provided the original realization of this approach. Consider the transition ampl itude between two states speciﬁed by a particular three-geometry , represented as a three-metric 3g in a speciﬁed gauge, and the values of N scalar ﬁeld conﬁgurations ⃗φ = {φj}N j=1 on the initial and ﬁna...

work page

[5] [4]

no-collapse

proceeds in two step. First, for a given metric and for each ﬁeld conﬁguration the functionalYφ ′′,φ ′[g] via exp(iYφ ′′,φ ′[g]) := ⟨φ′′|φ′⟩ g = ∫ D[φ]eiSm[g,φ ]/ ℏ. (8) 3 Then the full amplitude becomes ⟨3 g′′,⃗φ′′|3g′,⃗φ′⟩ = ∫ Σ ′′ Σ ′ ˘D[g] exp ( i ℏ ( Sg[g] +NYφ ′′,φ ′[g] ) ) . (9) Taking the N → ∞ limit requires rescaling of the gravita- tional coupl...

work page

[6] [5]

Once the Cavendish balance is in the future light cone of the random choice of the matter con- ﬁguration it will respond in one of the two possible distinct ways

holds. Once the Cavendish balance is in the future light cone of the random choice of the matter con- ﬁguration it will respond in one of the two possible distinct ways. On the other hand, in case of the improper mixture, the balnce will behave as (time-dependent) weighted average of the two responses. Such behaviour would allow to distinguish between two...

work page

[7] [6]

Belenchia, M

A. Belenchia, M. Letizia, S. Liberati, and E. Di Casola, Rep. Prog. Phys. 81, 036001 (2018)

work page 2018

[8] [7]

De Felice and S

A. De Felice and S. Tsujikawa, Liv. Rev. Rel. 13, 3 (2010)

work page 2010