The Gravito-Phononic Effect: A Quantum Signature of Linearised Gravity

Germain Tobar; Oscar Berg

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 46 references

The Gravito-Phononic Effect: A Quantum Signature of Linearised Gravity

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Two coupled harmonic oscillators can mimic all three photoelectric signatures, so a gravitational version — discrete energy transfer between a gravitational-wave field and an acoustic resonator — would be the first evidence that gravity…

desk verdict A clean pedagogical restatement of the semiclassical energy-conservation argument for gravito-phononic detection, but the central 'must quantize gravity' claim overreaches because non-linear hybrid models are acknowledged but never ruled out. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15531 v2 pith:QOV3WFM2 submitted 2024-11-23 quant-ph gr-qchep-th

Germain Tobar , Oscar Berg This is my paper · ORCID

classification quant-phgr-qchep-th

keywords gravitondetectionphotoelectriceffectgravito-phononicquantisedgravitationalradiationbeam-splitterinteractionharmonicoscillatorssemiclassicalmodelsenergyconservation

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 three signature features of the photoelectric effect — a threshold frequency, energy per transition that is independent of the field intensity, and near-instantaneous ejection — can be reproduced by two coupled harmonic oscillators exchanging energy through a beam-splitter interaction. In the gravitational version of this setup, a gravitational-wave mode couples to the vibrational (phonon) mode of a resonant-mass detector, and the same three signatures appear, defining a 'gravito-phononic effect'. The authors' central claim is that any consistent model of single-quantum energy exchange between gravitational radiation and quantum matter, in analogy with the photoelectric effect for photons, must quantise the linearised gravitational field. If correct, observing these signatures in a detector aimed at a known gravitational-wave source would be the first substantial experimental evidence for the graviton and for quantum gravity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the rotating-wave beam-splitter interaction $\hat H_{\mathrm{int}} = \hbar g(\hat a \hat b^\dagger + \hat b \hat a^\dagger)$ between two bosonic modes — the standard quantum description of exchanging single quanta. In the gravitational setting one mode is the linearised gravitational field at frequency $\nu$ and the other is the collective phonon mode of a resonant-mass detector at frequency $\omega$; the paper derives this coupling from the linearised-gravity interaction $H_{\mathrm{int}} = -\tfrac12 h_{\mu\nu} T^{\mu\nu}$ in TT-gauge/Fermi-normal coordinates, which reduces to a force proportional to $\ddot h_{xx}$ on the bar's normal modes. The same beam-splitter form describes resonant graviton-to-photon conversion in electromagnetic detectors read out in the particle-number basis. This mechanism carries the argument because the transition amplitude for the beam splitter is exactly the photoelectric formula, and because the quantised version is the step that restores energy conservation at the single-transition level.

What would settle it

The 'must quantise' claim would be refuted by a self-consistent non-linear hybrid theory that conserves energy at every single-transition event while reproducing the paper's transition probabilities and making no other change to quantum mechanics. On the experimental side, observing phonon-number jumps in a resonant-mass detector that violate the resonance condition $\hbar\nu=\hbar\omega$, or whose size depends on the field intensity, would refute the beam-splitter model itself.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is the beam-splitter Hamiltonian $\hat H = \hbar\nu \hat a^\dagger \hat a + \hbar\omega \hat b^\dagger \hat b + \hbar g(\hat a \hat b^\dagger + \hat b \hat a^\dagger)$ for a field mode of frequency $\nu$ and a detector mode of frequency $\omega$. When the field is prepared in a coherent state of amplitude $\alpha$, the probability for the detector to reach its first excited state is $P(|n=1\rangle) = 4g^2|\alpha|^2 \sin^2\!\big(\tfrac12(\nu-\omega)t\big)/(\nu-\omega)^2$. This single expression exhibits all photoelectric signatures: the resonance condition $\hbar\nu = \hbar\omega$ acts as the threshold frequency, the added phonon carries energy $\hbar\omega$ independent of the field amplitude, and the time dependence gives a non-zero transition probability at arbitrarily short times. The paper then shows that the semi-classical analogue (a classical oscillator driving a quantum detector) produces the same signatures but violates single-transition energy conservation by $\hbar\omega$, with the violation only statistically suppressed in the long-time, weak-coupling limit; a neo-classical back-reaction scheme restores some conservation at the cost of non-linearity. The quantised interaction, with vacuum coupling $g_{q,\nu} = \frac{1}{c}\sqrt{8\pi G\hbar/(V\nu)}$, is therefore presented as the minimal energy-conserving account of gravito-phononic transitions.

Load-bearing premise

The conclusion that quantisation is required rests on the premise that non-linear hybrid models, which can restore single-transition energy conservation at the cost of non-linearity, are not acceptable alternatives because they would require substantial modifications to quantum mechanics — a premise the paper asserts but does not prove to be inconsistent.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A resonant-mass bar read out in the phonon-number basis becomes a gravito-phononic photo-cell: a gravitational wave whose frequency matches the detector absorbs as one added phonon of energy $\hbar\omega$, independent of the wave amplitude.
Interferometric gravitational-wave detectors with particle-number readout fall under the same beam-splitter model, so their single-quantum energy exchange also constitutes a test of quantised linearised gravity.
Because the photoelectric signatures alone are not a smoking-gun proof of quantisation, the decisive content is the energy-conservation requirement: semiclassical models fail at the single-transition level, while fixing the failure requires non-linear hybrid models that modify quantum mechanics.
The proposals targeting known sources of gravitational radiation (for example kHz-band neutron-star merger signals) with established detection techniques would yield the strongest experimental evidence to date for the quantisation of gravity.

Reading between the lines

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

A tabletop test could precede any gravitational source: two superconducting or optomechanical oscillators with a beam-splitter coupling should show a single-phonon jump whose size $\hbar\omega$ is independent of drive power once the resonance condition is met, and measuring the phonon-number distribution would expose quantum statistics beyond the lowest transition.
The paper's reasoning implicitly ranks evidence: photoelectric-like signatures establish a quantum mechanism of energy exchange, but the inference to quantised gravity is forced only by the energy-conservation argument; therefore a future consistent non-linear hybrid theory that conserves energy per transition would directly undermine the 'must'.
If phonon coincidence counts across two detector modes could be measured, the beam-splitter model and semi-classical field theory would generically differ in their joint statistics, offering a gravitational analogue of the historical experiments that distinguished quantum from classical predictions for photoelectrons.

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

Quick take: if you use this paper, use it for the pedagogy, not for the proof. It gives a clean, mostly correct comparison of semiclassical, quantum, and neo-classical models for the photoelectric effect, extended to coupled harmonic oscillators and applied to gravito-phononic detection. But the conclusion's 'must involve the quantisation of gravitational radiation' is not established by the paper's own arguments, and the authors themselves point to the models they would need to exclude.

The good bits: Sections II and III lay out the threshold frequency, intensity independence, and near-instantaneous excitation in all three model classes, with explicit transition probabilities. The beam-splitter derivation in Appendix A is standard and correct. The energy-conservation argument in II.B and III.B is well presented: a classical field that never changes its energy cannot account for a detector's ℏω jump, while QFT can transfer one quantum. This is a useful teaching reference.

The soft spot is the load-bearing claim in Section IV. The paper explicitly shows in II.C and III.C that non-linear, back-reacting hybrid models reduce the energy violation, and it cites Refs [38-40] as 'consistent quantum-classical hybrid models.' Yet the conclusion asserts that any consistent model of single-quantum exchange must quantize gravity. No theorem is given to show those hybrids are internally inconsistent, violate causality, or fail to reproduce the signatures. The phrase 'at the expense of substantial modifications to quantum mechanics' is an assertion, not a proof. So the paper rules out linear, non-back-reacting semiclassics, but not the broader class of alternatives. That gap is internal, not an edge case.

The citation pattern is fair, though the gravito-phononic framework comes largely from the authors' own Refs [21,22,30]. The math is standard and, in the places I checked, correct. There are no new experimental predictions.

Who is this for? Someone wanting a compact summary of the semiclassical vs quantum energy-conservation debate in the context of graviton detection. As a research claim, the novelty is thin and the central 'must' is too strong.

Recommendation: do not desk reject; send to review. A good referee should ask for either a no-go argument excluding consistent hybrid models, or a rewrite that states the conclusion as evidence against linear semiclassical models rather than necessity of quantization.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper gives a pedagogical account of the photoelectric effect in semiclassical, quantum, and neo-classical models, then applies the same coupled-oscillator description to gravitational radiation interacting with a harmonic-oscillator detector. It argues that the hallmark photoelectric signatures (threshold/resonance, intensity-independent energy transfer, and short-time excitation) are reproduced by a two-oscillator beam-splitter model, and uses an energy-conservation argument to conclude that a consistent account of single-quantum energy exchange between gravitational radiation and quantum matter must involve quantization of the gravitational field.

Significance. The paper is clearly written and useful as a pedagogical bridge between the photoelectric effect and recent proposals for single-graviton detection. It correctly emphasizes that linear semiclassical models without back-reaction can mimic the photoelectric signatures, and it gives explicit, checkable transition probabilities in Appendices A and B. The claimed significance, however, is disproportionate: the central 'must involve quantisation' conclusion is not established by the arguments in the paper, because the neo-classical models presented earlier are acknowledged to restore energy conservation but are not ruled out. With a suitably weakened conclusion, the paper would be a reasonable contribution to the ongoing debate about what graviton-detection experiments can establish.

major comments (3)

[Section V, Sections II.C and III.C] The concluding claim that 'any consistent model of energy exchange of single quanta between gravitational radiation and quantum matter ... must involve the quantisation of gravitational radiation' is not supported by the preceding analysis. In Sections II.C and III.C, the authors themselves construct neo-classical hybrid models in which the field energy is time-dependent (Eqs. (10) and (19)) and back-reaction partially restores energy conservation. The paper asserts that these models require 'substantial modifications to quantum mechanics' (Section V), but it does not prove that they are internally inconsistent, violate causality, or are otherwise impossible. Thus the dichotomy 'quantized field versus energy-violating semiclassical model' is incomplete; the strongest defensible conclusion is conditional: if one insists on linear, non-back-reacting, strictly quantum-mechanical matter dynamics, then single-quantum transitions require a quantized field.
[Section II.B, Eqs. (3)-(6)] The energy-conservation argument compares transitions between eigenstates of the free Hamiltonian. For the semiclassical Hamiltonian in Eq. (3), the free-field energy H_F is inserted by hand and, in the standard semiclassical treatment, is not allowed to change; the 'violation' of energy conservation by ℏν is therefore an artefact of the no-back-reaction assumption rather than a general property of all classical field descriptions. The variance estimate ΔE = O(g_cl) in Eq. (6) shows that the energy non-conservation E_diff = ℏδ is meaningful only in the weak-coupling, long-time limit, and the paper does not demonstrate that this bookkeeping rule is forced by any fundamental principle. The argument establishes a property of a specific model class, not a no-go theorem for all alternatives to quantization.
[Section IV, Eq. (21)] The statement that 'all core signatures of the photo-electric effect, including the requirement of linearised quantum gravity for a consistent model of the energy exchange are required' is a restatement of the earlier argument rather than a new derivation. The quantized beam-splitter Hamiltonian (21) is an analogue model, and the paper provides no proof that the graviton-detection proposals covered by it exhaust all possible consistent models of gravitational radiation interacting with quantum matter. Without a no-go result that excludes non-linear hybrid models of the type presented in Sections II.C and III.C, the word 'must' in the conclusion is an overclaim.

minor comments (5)

[Section II.B, Eq. (7)] For a single two-level system, the probability (4g²/δ²) sin²(δt/2) does not vanish pointwise as t → ∞; the text's statement that the probability 'becomes zero for δ ≠ 0' is only correct after integrating over a continuum of final states or averaging over time. Please clarify the intended limiting procedure.
[Section III.A and Appendix A, Eq. (12)] The first-order perturbative expression for P(|n=1⟩) can exceed unity for large g|α| t; the validity condition for the truncation of the Dyson series should be stated explicitly.
[Throughout] There are numerous typographical errors, including 'it is be possible' (Introduction), 'corrobarating' (Section I), 'probility' (Section III.B), 'absoprtion' (Appendix B), 'beampslitter' (Appendix A), 'similiar' (Section IV), and 'electromagntetic' (Section IV). A thorough proofreading pass is needed.
[References] Reference [32] duplicates Reference [23], and Reference [33] is a closely related companion paper; the duplication should be resolved to avoid confusing the reader.
[Section III.B] The sentence describing Millikan's experiment is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten for clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional or fitted-input circularity; the central 'must quantize' claim is an overreach (non-linear hybrids are not excluded), but it is not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The oscillator transition-probability derivations in Eqs. (5), (12), and (16), together with the semiclassical energy-nonconservation argument, are standard, parameter-free calculations performed in this paper. No parameter is fitted to data, and no prediction is the formal consequence of a definition or of a prior same-author result. The only load-bearing gap is the conclusion's dichotomy: the paper itself shows in Sections II.C and III.C that non-linear hybrid models can restore single-transition energy conservation, and it excludes them only by calling them 'contrived' and saying they require 'substantial modifications to quantum mechanics' (Section V). That is an unsupported premise and a logical overreach, but it is not a circularity: the premise is not shown to be equivalent to the conclusion by construction, and the oscillator physics is self-contained. Self-citations to Refs. [21,22,30] name the gravito-phononic detection protocols and the prior qualitative argument, but they do not supply the mathematical content of the derivation, so they do not make the argument circular. Score 2 reflects minor self-citation without load-bearing circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The derivations use standard quantum optics and linearized gravity. The paper introduces no fitted parameters or new entities. Its novelty lies in the pedagogical framing and the interpretive argument, not in new physics. The most contestable assumption is the energy-conservation criterion used to rule out semi-classical models.

assumptions (6)

standard math Rotating-wave approximation for the beam-splitter Hamiltonian of Eq (11)
The paper drops counter-rotating terms in the coupled-oscillator Hamiltonian, valid for weak coupling near resonance. This is standard quantum optics.
domain assumption Quantization of the linearized gravitational field as plane waves, h_k = (1/c) sqrt(8πGℏ/(V ν_k)) a_k
Appendix B identifies the Fourier amplitude with a creation/annihilation operator. This assumes linearized quantum gravity, which is exactly the framework whose necessity the paper argues for.
domain assumption Interaction Hamiltonian H_int = -(1/2) h_μν T^μν with h_00 = -R_0j0k x_j x_k in Fermi normal coordinates
Appendix B uses these standard formulas to derive the force on a Weber bar. The derivation follows Maggiore [47].
domain assumption The detector is a single harmonic oscillator mode of a resonant bar
Section IV maps the generic oscillator model to a Weber bar. The bar's normal mode is assumed to be described by a quantum harmonic oscillator.
domain assumption The gravitational field is in a high-amplitude coherent state
Appendix A evaluates the transition probability using a coherent state |α⟩, which requires that the field can be prepared in such a state.
ad hoc to paper Energy conservation is defined by transitions between eigenstates of the free Hamiltonian
Section II.B quantifies 'violation' as the energy difference ℏδ between free eigenstates. This criterion, rather than the total-state energy spread, is the basis for ruling out semi-classical models.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The Gravito-Phononic Effect: A Quantum Signature of Linearised Gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QOV3WFM2

@misc{pith2026241115531,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The Gravito-Phononic Effect: A Quantum Signature of Linearised Gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QOV3WFM2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15531}
}

read the original abstract

The photo-electric effect was a historic milestone in the development of quantum theory, revealing the first evidence of discrete energy of the electromagnetic field through hallmark signatures such as the threshold frequency, intensity-independent energy transfer, and the near instantaneous ejection of photo-electrons. Here, we discuss the photo-electric effect through the lens of semi-classical, quantum, and neo-classical models. We provide a pedagogical outline for how two coupled harmonic oscillators, under a beam-splitter interaction, can exhibit hallmark signatures analogous to the photo-electric effect, including resonance conditions and quantised energy absorption. We discuss the implications of this model for recently proposed graviton detection protocols. This further clarifies that a gravitational version of the photo-electric effect, modelled as discrete energy transfer between harmonic oscillators can provide the first evidence of the graviton.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15531 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 39 canonical work pages

[1]

Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger,

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari, et al., “Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger,” Physical Review Letters116, 061102 (2016)

work page 2016
[2]

Sensitivity of the advanced ligo detectors at the beginning of gravitational wave astronomy,

B. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Anderson, K. Arai, M. Arain, L. Austin, M. Barbet, B. Barr, J. Bartlett, I. Bartos, Bergman, et al., “Sensitivity of the advanced ligo detectors at the beginning of gravitational wave astronomy,” Physical Review D93 (2016)

work page 2016
[3]

Gw170817: observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral,

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, et al., “Gw170817: observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral,” Physical Review Letters119, 161101 (2017). 8

work page 2017
[4]

Narrow-band search for gravitational waves from known pulsars using the second ligo observing run,

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt,et al., “Narrow-band search for gravitational waves from known pulsars using the second ligo observing run,” Physical Review D99, 122002 (2019)

work page 2019
[5]

Open data from the third observing run of ligo, virgo, kagra and geo,

R. Abbott, H. Abe, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, S. Adhicary, N. Adhikari, R. Adhikari, V. Adkins, V. Adya, C. Affeldt,et al., “Open data from the third observing run of ligo, virgo, kagra and geo,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03676 (2023)

arXiv 2023
[6]

Quantum squeezing of motion in a mechanical resonator,

E. E. Wollman, C. U. Lei, A. J. Weinstein, J. Suh, A. Kronwald, F. Marquardt, A. A. Clerk, and K. C. Schwab, “Quantum squeezing of motion in a mechanical resonator,” Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science)349, 952– 955 (2015)

work page 2015
[7]

Quantum acoustics with superconducting qubits,

Y. Chu, P. Kharel, W. H. Renninger, L. D. Burkhart, L. Frunzio, P. T. Rakich, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Quantum acoustics with superconducting qubits,” Science358, 199–202 (2017)

work page 2017
[8]

Quantum control of surface acoustic-wave phonons,

K. J. Satzinger, Y. P. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, G. A. Peairs, A. Bienfait, M.-H. Chou, A. Y. Cleland, C. R. Conner, E. Dumur, J. Grebel, I. Gutierrez, B. H. November, R. G. Povey, S. J. Whiteley, D. D. Awschalom, D. I. Schuster, and A. N. Cleland, “Quantum control of surface acoustic-wave phonons,” Nature563, 661–665 (2018)

work page 2018

Show all 46 references

[9]

Massive quantum systems as interfaces of quantum mechanics and gravity,

S. Bose, I. Fuentes, A. A. Geraci, S. M. Khan, S. Qvarfort, M. Rademacher, M. Rashid, M. Toroš, H. Ulbricht, and C. C. Wanjura, “Massive quantum systems as interfaces of quantum mechanics and gravity,” (2024), arXiv:2311.09218 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[10]

Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity,

S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroš, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. Kim, and G. Milburn, “Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity,” Physical Review Letters119, 240401 (2017)

2017
[11]

Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity,

C. Marletto and V. Vedral, “Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity,” Physical Review Letters119, 240402 (2017)

2017
[12]

When Zeh Meets Feynman: How to Avoid the Appearance of a Classical World in Gravity Experiments,

M. Aspelmeyer, “When Zeh Meets Feynman: How to Avoid the Appearance of a Classical World in Gravity Experiments,” inFrom Quantum to Classical; Essays in Honour of H.-Dieter Zeh, edited by C. Kiefer (2022) pp. 85–95

2022
[13]

Effective field theory approach to gravitationally induced decoherence,

M. P. Blencowe, “Effective field theory approach to gravitationally induced decoherence,” Physical review letters111, 021302–021302 (2013)

2013
[14]

Quantum interactions between a laser interferometer and gravitational waves,

B. Pang and Y. Chen, “Quantum interactions between a laser interferometer and gravitational waves,” Phys. Rev. D98, 124006 (2018)

2018
[15]

The noise of gravitons,

M. Parikh, F. Wilczek, and G. Zahariade, “The noise of gravitons,” International Journal of Modern Physics D29, 2042001 (2020)

2020
[16]

Noise and decoherence induced by gravitons,

S. Kanno, J. Soda, and J. Tokuda, “Noise and decoherence induced by gravitons,” Physical Review D103, 044017 (2021)

2021
[17]

Quantumsignaturesinnonlineargravitational waves,

T.Guerreiro, F.Coradeschi, A.M.Frassino, J.R.West, andE.J.Schioppa,“Quantumsignaturesinnonlineargravitational waves,” Quantum6, 879 (2022)

2022
[18]

Detecting acoherence in radiation fields,

S. K. Manikandan and F. Wilczek, “Detecting acoherence in radiation fields,” (2024), arXiv:2409.20378 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[19]

Aspects of graviton detection: graviton emission and absorption by atomic hydrogen,

S. Boughn and T. Rothman, “Aspects of graviton detection: graviton emission and absorption by atomic hydrogen,” Classical and quantum gravity23, 5839–5852 (2006)

2006
[20]

Is a graviton detectable?

F. Dyson, “Is a graviton detectable?” International journal of modern physics. A, Particles and fields, gravitation, cosmology 28, 1330041 (2013)

2013
[21]

Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing,

G. Tobar, S. K. Manikandan, T. Beitel, and I. Pikovski, “Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing,” Nature communications15, 7229–14 (2024)

2024
[22]

Detecting khz gravitons from a neutron star merger with a multi-mode resonant bar,

G. Tobar, I. Pikovski, and M. E. Tobar, “Detecting khz gravitons from a neutron star merger with a multi-mode resonant bar,” (2024), arXiv:2406.16898 [astro-ph.IM]

2024 arXiv
[24]

Detection and generation of gravitational waves,

J. Weber, “Detection and generation of gravitational waves,” Physical Review117, 306–313 (1960)

1960
[25]

Resonant gravitational wave antennas for stochastic background measure- ments,

P. Astone, G. V. Pallottino, and G. Pizzella, “Resonant gravitational wave antennas for stochastic background measure- ments,” Classical and Quantum Gravity14, 2019 (1997)

1997
[26]

Hanbury brown and twiss interferometry of single phonons from an optomechanical resonator,

S. Hong, R. Riedinger, I. Marinković, A. Wallucks, S. G. Hofer, R. A. Norte, M. Aspelmeyer, and S. Gröblacher, “Hanbury brown and twiss interferometry of single phonons from an optomechanical resonator,” Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science)358, 203–206 (2017)

2017
[27]

Preparation and decay of a single quantum of vibration at ambient conditions,

S. T. Velez, K. Seibold, N. Kipfer, M. D. Anderson, V. Sudhir, and C. Galland, “Preparation and decay of a single quantum of vibration at ambient conditions,” Physical Review X9, 041007 (2019)

2019
[28]

Superconducting qubit to optical photon transduction,

M. Mirhosseini, A. Sipahigil, M. Kalaee, and O. Painter, “Superconducting qubit to optical photon transduction,” Nature (London)588, 599–603 (2020)

2020
[29]

Parity measurement in the strong dispersive regime of circuit quantum acoustodynamics,

U. von Lüpke, Y. Yang, M. Bild, L. Michaud, M. Fadel, and Y. Chu, “Parity measurement in the strong dispersive regime of circuit quantum acoustodynamics,” Nature physics18, 794–799 (2022)

2022
[30]

Stimulated absorption of single gravitons: First light on quantum gravity,

V. Shenderov, M. Suppiah, T. Beitel, G. Tobar, S. K. Manikandan, and I. Pikovski, “Stimulated absorption of single gravitons: First light on quantum gravity,” (2024), arXiv:2407.11929 [gr-qc]

2024
[31]

The photoelectric effect without photons,

W. E. Lamb Jr and M. O. Scully, “The photoelectric effect without photons,” inPolarization, Matter, Radiation(Presses Universitaires, Paris, 1968) pp. 363–369

1968
[32]

Graviton detection and the quantization of gravity,

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

2024
[33]

Comments on graviton detection,

D. Carney, “Comments on graviton detection,” (2024), arXiv:2408.00094 [gr-qc]

2024
[34]

Experimental distinction between the quantum and classical field-theoretic predictions for the photoelectric effect,

J. F. Clauser, “Experimental distinction between the quantum and classical field-theoretic predictions for the photoelectric effect,” Phys. Rev. D9, 853–860 (1974)

1974
[35]

Mandel and E

L. Mandel and E. Wolf,Optical coherence and quantum optics(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995). 9

1995
[36]

Semiclassical physics and quantum fluctuations,

W. Boucher and J. Traschen, “Semiclassical physics and quantum fluctuations,” Phys. Rev. D37, 3522–3532 (1988)

1988
[37]

Classical-quantum hybrid models,

D. R. Terno, “Classical-quantum hybrid models,” (2024), arXiv:2309.05014 [quant-ph]

2024 arXiv
[38]

A postquantum theory of classical gravity?

J. Oppenheim, “A postquantum theory of classical gravity?” Phys. Rev. X13, 041040 (2023)

2023
[39]

Gravitationally induced decoherence vs space-time diffusion: testing the quantum nature of gravity,

J. Oppenheim, C. Sparaciari, B. Šoda, and Z. Weller-Davies, “Gravitationally induced decoherence vs space-time diffusion: testing the quantum nature of gravity,” Nature communications14, 7910–7910 (2023)

2023
[40]

A healthier semi-classical dynamics,

I. Layton, J. Oppenheim, and Z. Weller-Davies, “A healthier semi-classical dynamics,” (2023), arXiv:2208.11722 [quant- ph]

2023 arXiv
[41]

Resonant photon-graviton conversion and cosmic microwave background fluctuations,

P. Chen, “Resonant photon-graviton conversion and cosmic microwave background fluctuations,” Phys. Rev. Lett.74, 634–637 (1995)

1995
[42]

Conversion of relic gravitational waves into photons in cosmological magnetic fields,

A. D. Dolgov and D. Ejlli, “Conversion of relic gravitational waves into photons in cosmological magnetic fields,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012, 003 (2012)

2012
[43]

Resonant graviton-photon transitions with cosmological stochastic magnetic field,

A. Addazi, S. Capozziello, and Q. Gan, “Resonant graviton-photon transitions with cosmological stochastic magnetic field,” Physics Letters B851, 138574 (2024)

2024
[44]

Resonant graviton–photon conversion with stochastic magnetic field in the expanding universe,

A. Addazi, S. Capozziello, and Q. Gan, “Resonant graviton–photon conversion with stochastic magnetic field in the expanding universe,” Physics of the Dark Universe48, 101844 (2025)

2025
[45]

Über einem die erzeugung und verwandlung des lichtes betreffenden heuristischen gesichtspunkt,

A. Einstein, “Über einem die erzeugung und verwandlung des lichtes betreffenden heuristischen gesichtspunkt,” Annalen der physik4(1905)

1905
[46]

The case for and against semiclassical radiation theory,

L. Mandel, “The case for and against semiclassical radiation theory,” (Elsevier, 1976) pp. 27–68

1976
[47]

Maggiore,Gravitational waves

M. Maggiore,Gravitational waves. Volume 1, Theory and experiments(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2007)

2007

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger,

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, M. Abernathy, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari, et al., “Observation of gravitational waves from a binary black hole merger,” Physical Review Letters116, 061102 (2016)

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Sensitivity of the advanced ligo detectors at the beginning of gravitational wave astronomy,

B. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Anderson, K. Arai, M. Arain, L. Austin, M. Barbet, B. Barr, J. Bartlett, I. Bartos, Bergman, et al., “Sensitivity of the advanced ligo detectors at the beginning of gravitational wave astronomy,” Physical Review D93 (2016)

work page 2016

[3] [3]

Gw170817: observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral,

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, T. Adams, P. Addesso, R. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, et al., “Gw170817: observation of gravitational waves from a binary neutron star inspiral,” Physical Review Letters119, 161101 (2017). 8

work page 2017

[4] [4]

Narrow-band search for gravitational waves from known pulsars using the second ligo observing run,

B. P. Abbott, R. Abbott, T. Abbott, S. Abraham, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, C. Adams, R. X. Adhikari, V. B. Adya, C. Affeldt,et al., “Narrow-band search for gravitational waves from known pulsars using the second ligo observing run,” Physical Review D99, 122002 (2019)

work page 2019

[5] [5]

Open data from the third observing run of ligo, virgo, kagra and geo,

R. Abbott, H. Abe, F. Acernese, K. Ackley, S. Adhicary, N. Adhikari, R. Adhikari, V. Adkins, V. Adya, C. Affeldt,et al., “Open data from the third observing run of ligo, virgo, kagra and geo,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2302.03676 (2023)

arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Quantum squeezing of motion in a mechanical resonator,

E. E. Wollman, C. U. Lei, A. J. Weinstein, J. Suh, A. Kronwald, F. Marquardt, A. A. Clerk, and K. C. Schwab, “Quantum squeezing of motion in a mechanical resonator,” Science (American Association for the Advancement of Science)349, 952– 955 (2015)

work page 2015

[7] [7]

Quantum acoustics with superconducting qubits,

Y. Chu, P. Kharel, W. H. Renninger, L. D. Burkhart, L. Frunzio, P. T. Rakich, and R. J. Schoelkopf, “Quantum acoustics with superconducting qubits,” Science358, 199–202 (2017)

work page 2017

[8] [8]

Quantum control of surface acoustic-wave phonons,

K. J. Satzinger, Y. P. Zhong, H.-S. Chang, G. A. Peairs, A. Bienfait, M.-H. Chou, A. Y. Cleland, C. R. Conner, E. Dumur, J. Grebel, I. Gutierrez, B. H. November, R. G. Povey, S. J. Whiteley, D. D. Awschalom, D. I. Schuster, and A. N. Cleland, “Quantum control of surface acoustic-wave phonons,” Nature563, 661–665 (2018)

work page 2018