Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 46 references

Gravity-induced entanglement between two quantum clocks can serve as a witness for a genuinely quantum violation of local position invariance, turning the mere appearance of entanglement into a test of the equivalence principle in the quant

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 13:20 UTC pith:Y6WT7LAV

load-bearing objection Two-clock GIE scheme is a clean new idea with the math checking out; the load-bearing active/passive-mass assumption is acknowledged but not analyzed. the 2 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19141 v1 pith:Y6WT7LAV submitted 2026-07-21 gr-qc

Gravity-Induced Entanglement of Quantum Clocks as a Signature of Genuinely Quantum Local Position Invariance

Eyuri Wakakuwa This is my paper
classification gr-qc PACS 04.60.-m03.65.Ud
keywords gravity-induced entanglementquantum clockslocal position invarianceequivalence principlequantum gravity phenomenologymass-energy equivalencenoncommutativityentanglement oscillation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper proposes that two quantum clocks interacting gravitationally can reveal whether local position invariance (LPI)—a core part of Einstein's equivalence principle—holds when gravity is sourced by quantum matter. By adapting an existing quantum formulation of LPI, the author shows that in one scheme, entanglement between the clocks arises if and only if the rest-mass and gravitational-mass Hamiltonians do not commute, marking a genuinely quantum violation of LPI. In a second scheme, a classical-like violation (where the Hamiltonians commute but have different eigenvalues) shows up as a shift in the oscillation frequency of the entanglement. If correct, this provides a single experimental platform to distinguish two types of LPI violation simply by changing the initial clock state.

Core claim

The paper establishes a direct link between gravity-induced entanglement (GIE) of two quantum clocks and the quantum formulation of local position invariance. For two identical clocks trapped at a fixed separation, the effective Hamiltonian places the rest Hamiltonian and the gravitational Hamiltonian as operator-valued masses. The central theorem states: entanglement is generated from an eigenstate of the rest Hamiltonian if and only if the rest and gravitational Hamiltonians do not commute—i.e., if and only if there is a genuinely quantum violation of LPI. In the complementary scheme with an equal superposition initial state, the entanglement oscillates at a frequency ω̃e = G ΔẼ²/(2ℏc⁴ℓ₀)

What carries the argument

The central object is the two-clock Hamiltonian obtained by adapting the Zych-Brukner quantum equivalence principle model, Eq. (2): H_tot = H_rest^A + H_rest^B − G H_grav^A ⊗ H_grav^B/(c⁴|Q_A−Q_B|), plus trapping potentials. The key identity is the operator product of the gravitational Hamiltonians, which entangles the clocks when the rest and gravitational Hamiltonians do not share eigenvectors. The analysis hinges on the reduced dynamics after tracing out the spatial degrees of freedom, yielding a Gaussian mixture over separations; the entanglement is then quantified by the binary entropy of the one-clock reduced state, and the entanglement frequency ω̃e emerges from the quadratic term in

Load-bearing premise

The identification of active and passive gravitational mass with a single operator H_grav for each clock (Eq. 2) is assumed; if these masses are independent operators, the clean 'if and only if' relation between entanglement and noncommutativity can break down, as the paper itself notes.

What would settle it

A direct falsifier would be a calculation or experiment showing that entanglement can be generated between two clock eigenstates even when the rest and gravitational Hamiltonians commute (for instance, by allowing active and passive masses to differ), or, conversely, an experiment with noncommuting Hamiltonians and a pure eigenstate initial state that produces no entanglement at any time for any reasonable separation width.

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

If this is right

  • If the theorem holds, then the observation of gravity-induced entanglement between two clock eigenstates is itself a witness of a genuinely quantum violation of local position invariance—no calibration against other quantities is needed.
  • The two schemes can be run in the same setup by only changing the initial internal state, offering a unified probe of both noncommutativity (Scheme 1) and eigenvalue mismatch (Scheme 2) of the mass-energy Hamiltonians.
  • Measuring the entanglement oscillation frequency in Scheme 2, together with the proper frequency and separation, yields a quantitative value for η²; any deviation from unity signals LPI violation.
  • The framework is independent of the ongoing debate about whether GIE implies the quantum nature of gravity, since it only assumes quantum mechanics for the clocks and treats gravity as an interaction Hamiltonian.
  • The entanglement frequency ω̃e scales with the square of the gravitational energy gap of a single clock, making it a feature that vanishes if either clock's gravitational mass is classical, thereby isolating a quantum-source effect.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One might extend this to the case where active and passive gravitational masses are independent operators (as the paper acknowledges); then Scheme 1's 'if and only if' condition would need modification, and the entanglement could arise even when H_rest and H_grav commute, potentially weakening the claimed signature.
  • The quantitative relation η² = 2c⁴ℓ₀ω̃e/(ℏGΩ²) suggests a route to laboratory constraints on LPI violations from future GIE experiments, but requires careful control of wave-packet spread to avoid decoherence that damps the oscillation signal.
  • A natural next step is to include the kinetic term in the Hamiltonian, enabling mobile clocks or spatial superpositions, which might reveal a complementary signature in the center-of-mass entanglement rather than only in the internal state.
  • The paper's framework could also be used to predict how a violation of LPI affects the gravitational redshift between the clocks, offering a cross-check between the entanglement frequency and the redshift-derived parameters.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper extends the Zych–Brukner operator formulation of the quantum equivalence principle to a two-particle setting in which two quantum clocks interact gravitationally. It proposes two measurement schemes that differ only in the initial internal state. Scheme 1 chooses an eigenstate of the rest Hamiltonian and claims that gravity-induced entanglement (GIE) is generated if and only if the rest and gravitational mass Hamiltonians do not commute, i.e., if and only if there is a genuinely quantum violation of local position invariance (LPI). Scheme 2 chooses an equal superposition of two energy eigenstates and shows that classical-like LPI violation (eigenvalue mismatch) manifests as a deviation of the entanglement oscillation frequency from the LPI prediction; the paper derives a consistency relation η² = 2c⁴ℓ₀ω̃e/(ℏGΩ²) involving the LPI-violation parameter η, the clock separation, the entanglement frequency, and the proper clock frequency. The central results are stated as a theorem with a short proof and a supporting appendix.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper provides a conceptually clean and falsifiable witness of quantum LPI violation: in Scheme 1, the mere presence of GIE would signal noncommutativity of the rest and gravitational Hamiltonians, a genuinely quantum effect with no classical analog. Scheme 2 offers a complementary quantitative test. The derivation leading to Eq. (5) is parameter-free in the sense that no quantities are fitted; the algebra in Appendix A is explicit and reproducible. The paper is also transparent about its main modeling assumption and lists the active/passive gravitational mass identification as a limitation. However, the strength of the claimed 'iff' theorem is diminished by the fact that the proof is only sketched and that the result is conditional on an assumption that the paper itself notes may fail in more general quantum models.

major comments (2)
  1. [Setup, Eq. (2); Conclusion] The central 'iff' claim of Scheme 1 rests on the assumption in Eq. (2) that active and passive gravitational mass are represented by a single operator H_grav. The paper explicitly states this in the Setup and acknowledges in the Conclusion (citing Ref. [25]) that these masses may be independent. If they are distinct, the interaction would involve products of H_active and H_passive, and the commutator governing entanglement generation would not be solely [H_rest, H_grav]. The claimed 'only if' and 'if' directions could then both fail. Because the abstract and theorem state an unqualified characterization, the paper needs either to justify the identification more strongly, to extend the analysis to distinct active/passive operators, or to explicitly qualify every theorem and abstract claim as conditional on this identification.
  2. [Scheme 1, Theorem proof] The proof of the 'if' direction is incomplete. It asserts: 'In this case, entanglement will be generated if [H_rest,H_grav]≠0' without proof, and then invokes continuity in w. The missing step is a demonstration that, for some eigenstate |k> of H_rest that is not an eigenstate of H_grav, the unitary generated by H_grav^A⊗H_grav^B produces a non-product state at some finite time. This is true in finite dimensions (via an eigen-decomposition argument), but it is not shown. The proof should be expanded to cover the finite-dimensional case, including degeneracies, before the claimed theorem is established.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (1)] The notation c^2 P^2/2 H_int is ambiguous; it should be written as c^2 P^2/(2 H_int) to make clear that the inverse of the inertial-mass operator is taken.
  2. [Scheme 2, text after Eq. (4)] The statement that 'ω̃r is the gravitational redshift on clock A due to the effective gravitational potential generated by the average mass of clock B' is helpful, but it would benefit from an explicit relation to the standard redshift formula to avoid confusion with the operator product that generates ω̃e.
  3. [Scheme 1, example] In the two-level example, the condition θ ≠ mπ/2 is stated as equivalent to the theorem. It may be worth noting explicitly that this condition excludes both the aligned (sinθ=0) and swapped (cosθ=0) bases, which are the commuting cases.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: results are mathematical consequences of the stated model, with no fitted parameter disguised as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central theorems follow from the effective Hamiltonian in Eq. (2), which is an explicit assumption rather than a hidden input. Scheme 1's iff statement is a derivation: if [H_rest,H_grav]=0, rest eigenstates are invariant under U_l(t); if not, a noncommuting perturbation creates entanglement. Scheme 2's Eq. (5) is a rearrangement of the definitions eta = dEtilde/dE, Omega = dE/hbar, and omega_tilde_e = G dEtilde^2/(2 hbar c^4 l0); while tautological, it is used as a consistency relation between independently measurable quantities, not as a fit. The self-citation [28] is historical context and carries no load. The paper explicitly flags the active/passive mass identification as a limitation and cites [25] where they differ; this is an assumption whose relaxation could alter the criterion, but it is not circular. There is an omitted proof detail for the 'if' direction of Scheme 1 (the claim that a nonzero commutator implies entanglement for some eigenstate), but that is an incompleteness, not circularity. No parameter is fitted to the predicted quantity; no external result is invoked to forbid alternatives.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted constants: the values E_k, Ẽ_k and θ are degrees of freedom of the model, to be constrained by future experiments, not parameters fit to data. The load-bearing input is the operator structure of Eq (2) and the identification of active and passive mass. The paper is explicit about these assumptions and the ledger records them as axioms.

axioms (5)
  • domain assumption LPI can be characterized by independence of the operators H_rest and H_grav in a quantum extension of the equivalence principle.
    Adopted from Zych-Brukner [8,12]; the entire analysis is built on this operator formulation. The paper does not derive this formulation from an underlying quantum-gravity theory.
  • ad hoc to paper Active and passive gravitational mass of each clock are represented by a single Hamiltonian H_grav.
    Stated in the Setup: 'we here assume that the two masses are represented by a single Hamiltonian'. The paper acknowledges that active/passive mass distinction is an independent aspect of the equivalence principle ([21-25]) and leaves it for future work. If false, the entanglement signatures do not cleanly map to LPI violation.
  • ad hoc to paper The gravitational interaction between the clocks is the Newtonian potential term −G H_grav^A⊗H_grav^B/(c⁴|Q_A−Q_B|), added to the sum of the one-particle Zych-Brukner Hamiltonians.
    Eq (2) is posited as an effective low-energy Hamiltonian that 'incorporates the possible violation of quantum LPI'; it is not derived from a UV theory. All subsequent conclusions follow from this form.
  • domain assumption The clocks are identical, have negligible wavefunction overlap, and their kinetic energy is negligible (positions do not change during evolution).
    Stated in the Setup; these assumptions justify the form of Eq (2) and the reduced dynamics with a static separation distribution ϱ(ℓ).
  • domain assumption The spatial separation distribution is Gaussian with width w, with w ≪ ℓ0, allowing the first-order expansion ℓ0/ℓ ≈ 1−ξ/ℓ0 in Appendix A.
    Used to evaluate the averaged reduced density matrix and the decoherence envelopes; the final formulas for ⟨X⟩²+⟨Y⟩² depend on this Gaussian model.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 9297 in / 26837 out tokens · 238207 ms · 2026-08-01T13:20:38.342763+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Whether the principles of general relativity extend to a quantum regime remains one of the open questions in modern physics. In classical general relativity, Einstein's equivalence principle underpins the interpretation of gravity as spacetime geometry. However, it is not known whether the principle remains valid when the source of gravity could be quantum. Here we show that gravity-induced entanglement (GIE) of quantum clocks provides a framework to characterize local position invariance (LPI) in such a regime, which constitutes one of the subprinciples of the equivalence principle. By adapting the existing formulation of quantum LPI to the context of GIE, we analyze two schemes that address complementary aspects of LPI and differ only in the choice of the initial clock state: one in which entanglement will be generated if and only if there is a genuinely quantum violation of LPI, and the other where classical-like LPI violation manifests in the frequency of entanglement oscillation. Our results suggest that GIE of quantum clocks offers an approach to investigating fundamental principles of general relativity in the quantum regime, shedding new light on the interplay between quantum mechanics and the theory of gravity.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19141 by Eyuri Wakakuwa.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Schematic diagram of the proposed setup. Two [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p001_1.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 7 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    C. M. Will,Theory and experiment in gravitational physics(Cambridge university press, 2018)

    2018

  2. [2]

    C. M. Will, The confrontation between general relativ- ity and experiment, Living Reviews in Relativity17, 1 (2014)

    2014

  3. [3]

    Aharonov and G

    Y. Aharonov and G. Carmi, Quantum aspects of the equivalence principle, Foundations of Physics3, 493 (1973)

    1973

  4. [4]

    L¨ ammerzahl, On the equivalence principle in quan- tum theory, General Relativity and Gravitation28, 1043 (1996)

    C. L¨ ammerzahl, On the equivalence principle in quan- tum theory, General Relativity and Gravitation28, 1043 (1996)

    1996

  5. [5]

    Viola and R

    L. Viola and R. Onofrio, Testing the equivalence principle through freely falling quantum objects, Physical Review D55, 455 (1997)

    1997

  6. [6]

    P. C. Davies, Quantum mechanics and the equiva- lence principle, Classical and Quantum Gravity21, 2761 (2004)

    2004

  7. [7]

    Seveso, V

    L. Seveso, V. Peri, and M. G. Paris, Does universality of free-fall apply to the motion of quantum probes?, in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Vol. 880 (IOP Publishing, 2017) p. 012067

    2017

  8. [8]

    Zych,Quantum systems under gravitational time di- lation(Springer, 2017)

    M. Zych,Quantum systems under gravitational time di- lation(Springer, 2017)

    2017

  9. [9]

    Anastopoulos and B.-L

    C. Anastopoulos and B.-L. Hu, Equivalence principle for quantum systems: dephasing and phase shift of free- falling particles, Classical and Quantum Gravity35, 035011 (2018)

    2018

  10. [10]

    Geiger and M

    R. Geiger and M. Trupke, Proposal for a quantum test of the weak equivalence principle with entangled atomic species, Physical Review Letters120, 043602 (2018)

    2018

  11. [11]

    Hardy, The construction interpretation: con- ceptual roads to quantum gravity, arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.10980 (2018)

    L. Hardy, The construction interpretation: con- ceptual roads to quantum gravity, arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.10980 (2018)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    Zych and ˇC

    M. Zych and ˇC. Brukner, Quantum formulation of the einstein equivalence principle, Nature Physics14, 1027 (2018)

    2018

  13. [13]

    Giacomini and ˇC

    F. Giacomini and ˇC. Brukner, Einstein’s equiv- alence principle for superpositions of gravitational fields and quantum reference frames, arXiv preprint arXiv:2012.13754 (2020)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  14. [14]

    L. Hardy, Implementation of the quantum equivalence principle, inProgress and Visions in Quantum Theory in View of Gravity: Bridging foundations of physics and mathematics(Springer, 2020) pp. 189–220

    2020

  15. [15]

    Giacomini and ˇC

    F. Giacomini and ˇC. Brukner, Quantum superposition of spacetimes obeys einstein’s equivalence principle, A VS Quantum Science4(2022)

    2022

  16. [16]

    G. Rosi, G. D’Amico, L. Cacciapuoti, F. Sorrentino, M. Prevedelli, M. Zych, ˇC. Brukner, and G. M. Tino, Quantum test of the equivalence principle for atoms in coherent superposition of internal energy states, Nature Communications8, 15529 (2017)

    2017

  17. [17]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroˇ s, 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

  18. [18]

    Marletto and V

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

    2017

  19. [19]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, M. Schut, and M. Toroˇ s, En- tanglement witness for the weak equivalence principle, Entropy25, 448 (2023)

    2023

  20. [20]

    Castro Ruiz, F

    E. Castro Ruiz, F. Giacomini, and ˇC. Brukner, Entan- glement of quantum clocks through gravity, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences114, E2303 (2017)

    2017

  21. [21]

    L. B. Kreuzer, Experimental measurement of the equiv- alence of active and passive gravitational mass, Physical Review169, 1007 (1968)

    1968

  22. [22]

    Bartlett and D

    D. Bartlett and D. Van Buren, Equivalence of active and passive gravitational mass using the moon, Physical re- view letters57, 21 (1986)

    1986

  23. [23]

    V. V. Singh, J. M¨ uller, L. Biskupek, E. Hackmann, and C. L¨ ammerzahl, Equivalence of active and passive grav- itational mass tested with lunar laser ranging, Physical review letters131, 021401 (2023)

    2023

  24. [24]

    Giulini, What if active and passive gravitational masses were not equal?, American Journal of Physics94, 555 (2026)

    D. Giulini, What if active and passive gravitational masses were not equal?, American Journal of Physics94, 555 (2026)

    2026

  25. [25]

    Fragkos and I

    V. Fragkos and I. Pikovski, Probing classical and quan- tum violations of the equivalence of active and pas- sive gravitational mass, arXiv preprint arXiv:2503.16198 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Anastopoulos and B

    C. Anastopoulos and B. Hu, Problems with the newton– schr¨ odinger equations, New Journal of Physics16, 085007 (2014)

    2014

  27. [27]

    Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge university press, 2018)

    J. Watrous,The Theory of Quantum Information(Cam- bridge university press, 2018)

    2018

  28. [28]

    Wakakuwa, Detectability of post-newtonian classical and quantum gravity via quantum clock interferometry, Phys

    E. Wakakuwa, Detectability of post-newtonian classical and quantum gravity via quantum clock interferometry, Phys. Rev. D113, 086008 (2026)

    2026

  29. [29]

    Aziz and R

    J. Aziz and R. Howl, Classical theories of gravity produce entanglement, Nature646, 813 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Di Biagio, The simple reason why classical gravity can entangle (2025), arXiv:2511.02683 [gr-qc]

    A. Di Biagio, The simple reason why classical gravity can entangle (2025), arXiv:2511.02683 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Classical gravity can- not mediate entanglement by local means (2025), arXiv:2510.19969 [quant-ph]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Mitrakos, M

    N. Mitrakos, M. Papageorgiou, T. R. Perche, and M. Christodoulou, When does entanglement through gravity imply gravitons?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2601.03214 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  33. [33]

    Trillo and M

    D. Trillo and M. Navascu´ es, Di´ osi-penrose model of clas- sical gravity predicts gravitationally induced entangle- ment, Physical Review D111, L121101 (2025)

    2025

  34. [34]

    S. L. Ludescher, L. D. Loveridge, T. D. Galley, and M. P. M¨ uller, Gravity-mediated entanglement via infinite- dimensional systems, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical59, 215302 (2026)

    2026

  35. [35]

    Weller-Davies, Is there a ‘smoking gun’ test for quan- tum gravity?, Nature646, 809 (2025)

    Z. Weller-Davies, Is there a ‘smoking gun’ test for quan- tum gravity?, Nature646, 809 (2025)

    2025

  36. [36]

    Angeli and M

    O. Angeli and M. Carlesso, Entanglement in markovian hybrid classical-quantum theories of gravity, Physical Re- view D112, 024047 (2025)

    2025

  37. [37]

    Marletto, J

    C. Marletto, J. Oppenheim, V. Vedral, and E. Wilson, 6 Classical gravity cannot mediate entanglement, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.07348 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  38. [38]

    Aspelmeyer, Quantum entanglement by gravity as tests of gravitational collapse models ` a la di´ osi and pen- rose, Comptes Rendus

    M. Aspelmeyer, Quantum entanglement by gravity as tests of gravitational collapse models ` a la di´ osi and pen- rose, Comptes Rendus. Physique27, 1 (2026)

    2026

  39. [39]

    T. Feng, V. Vedral, and C. Marletto, Collapse-based models for gravity do not violate the entanglement-based witness of nonclassicality, Physical Review D113, 104055 (2026)

    2026

  40. [40]

    Gundhi, G

    A. Gundhi, G. Infantino, and A. Bassi, Can classical the- ories of gravity produce entanglement?, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.19696 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  41. [41]

    M. D. Schneider, N. Huggett, and N. Linnemann, A demonstration that classical gravity does not pro- duce entanglement, Classical and Quantum Gravity 10.1088/1361-6382/ae6f62 (2025)

    doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ae6f62 2025

  42. [42]

    Lin and S

    F.-L. Lin and S. Mondal, Can newtonian gravity pro- duce quantum entanglement?, Physical Review D113, L061901 (2026)

    2026

  43. [43]

    Di´ osi, No, classical gravity does not entangle quantized matter fields, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00852 (2025)

    L. Di´ osi, No, classical gravity does not entangle quantized matter fields, arXiv preprint arXiv:2511.00852 (2025)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    Boulle and G

    N. Boulle and G. Franzmann, Subsystems (in) depen- dence in gie proposals, arXiv preprint arXiv:2512.17024 (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  45. [45]

    H. Xue, Z. Tang, C. Yang, Z. Han, Z. Kan, and Y. Liu, Aziz and howl’s gravity-induced entanglement channel is essentially classical mechanics, arXiv preprint arXiv:2604.16276 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  46. [46]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Quantum-information meth- ods for quantum gravity laboratory-based tests, Reviews of Modern Physics97, 015006 (2025). Appendix A: Evaluation of entanglement in Scheme 2 Suppose that the probability mass functionϱ(ℓ) is represented as the Gaussian distribution centered around a fixed radiusℓ 0 with the widthw: ϱ(ℓ) = 1√ 2πw2 exp ...

    2025