Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Search
2000 character limit reached

Einstein's Equivalence principle for superpositions of gravitational fields and quantum reference frames

Published 26 Dec 2020 in quant-ph and gr-qc | (2012.13754v4)

Abstract: The Einstein Equivalence Principle (EEP), stating that all laws of physics take their special-relativistic form in any local inertial (classical) reference frame, lies at the core of general relativity. Because of its fundamental status, this principle could be a very powerful guide in formulating physical laws at regimes where both gravitational and quantum effects are relevant. The formulation of the EEP only holds when both matter systems and gravity are classical, and we do not know whether we should abandon or modify it when we consider quantum systems in a-possibly nonclassical-gravitational field. Here, we propose that the EEP is valid for a broader class of reference frames, namely Quantum Reference Frames (QRFs) associated to quantum systems. By imposing certain restrictions on the type of nonclassicality of the gravitational field, we develop a framework that enables us to formulate an extension of the EEP for such gravitational fields. This means that the EEP is valid in a much wider set of physical situations than what it is currently applied to, including those in which the gravitational field is in a quantum superposition state.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (77)
  1. H. R. Brown and J. Read, “Clarifying possible misconceptions in the foundations of general relativity,” Am. J. Phys., vol. 84, no. 5, pp. 327–334, 2016.
  2. C. M. Will, “The confrontation between general relativity and experiment,” Living Reviews in Relativity, 2014.
  3. G. Tino, L. Cacciapuoti, S. Capozziello, G. Lambiase, and F. Sorrentino, “Precision gravity tests and the Einstein Equivalence Principle,” Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys., p. 103772, 2020.
  4. Y. Aharonov and G. Carmi, “Quantum aspects of the equivalence principle,” Found. Phys., vol. 3, no. 4, pp. 493–498, 1973.
  5. C. Lämmerzahl, “On the equivalence principle in quantum theory,” Gen. Relativ. Gravit., vol. 28, no. 9, pp. 1043–1070, 1996.
  6. L. Viola and R. Onofrio, “Testing the equivalence principle through freely falling quantum objects,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 55, no. 2, p. 455, 1997.
  7. G. Rosi, G. D’Amico, L. Cacciapuoti, F. Sorrentino, M. Prevedelli, M. Zych, Č. Brukner, and G. Tino, “Quantum test of the equivalence principle for atoms in coherent superposition of internal energy states,” Nat. Commun., vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–6, 2017.
  8. M. Zych and Č. Brukner, “Quantum formulation of the Einstein Equivalence Erinciple,” Nat. Phys., vol. 14, no. 10, pp. 1027–1031, 2018.
  9. C. Anastopoulos and B.-L. Hu, “Equivalence principle for quantum systems: dephasing and phase shift of free-falling particles,” Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 35, no. 3, p. 035011, 2018.
  10. 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, p. 012067, Institute of Physics, 2017.
  11. L. Hardy, “Implementation of the Quantum Equivalence Principle,” in Progress and Visions in Quantum Theory in view of Gravity, pp. 189–220, Springer, 2020.
  12. R. Penrose, “On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction,” Gen. Rel. Grav., vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 581–600, 1996.
  13. R. Penrose, “On the gravitization of quantum mechanics 1: Quantum state reduction,” Found. Phys., vol. 44, no. 5, pp. 557–575, 2014.
  14. P. C. W. Davies, “Quantum mechanics and the equivalence principle,” Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 21, p. 2761, may 2004.
  15. R. Geiger and M. Trupke, “Proposal for a quantum test of the weak equivalence principle with entangled atomic species,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 120, no. 4, p. 043602, 2018.
  16. Y. Aharonov and L. Susskind, “Charge Superselection Rule,” Phys. Rev., vol. 155, pp. 1428–1431, 1967.
  17. Y. Aharonov and L. Susskind, “Observability of the sign change of spinors under 2⁢π2𝜋2\pi2 italic_π rotations,” Phys. Rev., vol. 158, pp. 1237–1238, 1967.
  18. Y. Aharonov and T. Kaufherr, “Quantum frames of reference,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 30, pp. 368–385, 1984.
  19. B. S. DeWitt, “Quantum theory of gravity. I. The canonical theory,” Phys. Rev., vol. 160, no. 5, p. 1113, 1967.
  20. S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, and R. W. Spekkens, “Reference frames, superselection rules, and quantum information,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 79, pp. 555–609, 2007.
  21. S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens, and P. S. Turner, “Quantum communication using a bounded-size quantum reference frame,” New J. Phys., vol. 11, no. 6, p. 063013, 2009.
  22. G. Gour and R. W. Spekkens, “The resource theory of quantum reference frames: manipulations and monotones,” New J. Phys., vol. 10, no. 3, p. 033023, 2008.
  23. A. Kitaev, D. Mayers, and J. Preskill, “Superselection rules and quantum protocols,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 69, no. 5, p. 052326, 2004.
  24. M. C. Palmer, F. Girelli, and S. D. Bartlett, “Changing quantum reference frames,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 89, p. 052121, 2014.
  25. S. D. Bartlett, T. Rudolph, R. W. Spekkens, and P. S. Turner, “Degradation of a quantum reference frame,” New J. Phys., vol. 8, no. 4, p. 58, 2006.
  26. A. R. H. Smith, M. Piani, and R. B. Mann, “Quantum reference frames associated with noncompact groups: The case of translations and boosts and the role of mass,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 94, p. 012333, 2016.
  27. D. Poulin and J. Yard, “Dynamics of a quantum reference frame,” New J. Phys., vol. 9, no. 5, p. 156, 2007.
  28. M. Skotiniotis, B. Toloui, I. T. Durham, and B. C. Sanders, “Quantum Frameness for C⁢P⁢T𝐶𝑃𝑇CPTitalic_C italic_P italic_T Symmetry,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 111, p. 020504, 2013.
  29. C. Rovelli, “Quantum reference systems,” Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 8, no. 2, p. 317, 1991.
  30. D. Poulin, “Toy model for a relational formulation of quantum theory,” Int. J. Theor. Phys., vol. 45, no. 7, pp. 1189–1215, 2006.
  31. F. Girelli and D. Poulin, “Quantum reference frames and deformed symmetries,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 77, p. 104012, 2008.
  32. T. Miyadera, L. Loveridge, and P. Busch, “Approximating relational observables by absolute quantities: a quantum accuracy-size trade-off,” J. Phys. A, vol. 49, no. 18, p. 185301, 2016.
  33. L. Loveridge, P. Busch, and T. Miyadera, “Relativity of quantum states and observables,” EPL (Europhysics Letters), vol. 117, no. 4, p. 40004, 2017.
  34. L. Loveridge, T. Miyadera, and P. Busch, “Symmetry, reference frames, and relational quantities in quantum mechanics,” Found. Phys., vol. 48, no. 2, pp. 135–198, 2018.
  35. J. Pienaar, “A relational approach to quantum reference frames for spins,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1601.07320, 2016.
  36. R. M. Angelo, N. Brunner, S. Popescu, A. J. Short, and P. Skrzypczyk, “Physics within a quantum reference frame,” J. Phys. A, vol. 44, no. 14, p. 145304, 2011.
  37. R. M. Angelo and A. D. Ribeiro, “Kinematics and dynamics in noninertial quantum frames of reference,” J. Phys. A, vol. 45, no. 46, p. 465306, 2012.
  38. S. T. Pereira and R. M. Angelo, “Galilei covariance and Einstein’s equivalence principle in quantum reference frames,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 91, p. 022107, 2015.
  39. F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and Č. Brukner, “Quantum mechanics and the covariance of physical laws in quantum reference frames,” Nat. Commun., vol. 10, no. 1, p. 494, 2019.
  40. A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Hoehn, F. Giacomini, and E. Castro-Ruiz, “A change of perspective: switching quantum reference frames via a perspective-neutral framework,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 225, 2020.
  41. A. Vanrietvelde, P. A. Höhn, and F. Giacomini, “Switching quantum reference frames in the N-body problem and the absence of global relational perspectives,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.05093, 2018.
  42. L. Hardy, “The construction interpretation: a conceptual road to quantum gravity,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1807.10980, 2018.
  43. M. Zych, F. Costa, and T. C. Ralph, “Relativity of quantum superpositions,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.04999, 2018.
  44. P. A. Höhn and A. Vanrietvelde, “How to switch between relational quantum clocks,” New J. Phys., vol. 22, no. 12, p. 123048, 2020.
  45. P. A. Höhn, “Switching internal times and a new perspective on the ‘wave function of the universe’,” Universe, vol. 5, no. 5, p. 116, 2019.
  46. F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, and Č. Brukner, “Relativistic quantum reference frames: the operational meaning of spin,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 123, no. 9, p. 090404, 2019.
  47. P. A. Höhn, A. R. Smith, and M. P. Lock, “The trinity of relational quantum dynamics,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1912.00033, 2019.
  48. E. Castro-Ruiz, F. Giacomini, A. Belenchia, and Č. Brukner, “Quantum clocks and the temporal localisability of events in the presence of gravitating quantum systems,” Nat. Commun., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–12, 2020.
  49. P. A. Höhn, A. R. H. Smith, and M. P. E. Lock, “Equivalence of Approaches to Relational Quantum Dynamics in Relativistic Settings,” Front. in Phys., vol. 9, p. 181, 2021.
  50. L. F. Streiter, F. Giacomini, and Č. Brukner, “Relativistic Bell Test within Quantum Reference Frames,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 126, no. 23, p. 230403, 2021.
  51. J. M. Yang, “Switching Quantum Reference Frames for Quantum Measurement,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 283, 2020.
  52. A.-C. de la Hamette and T. D. Galley, “Quantum reference frames for general symmetry groups,” Quantum, vol. 4, p. 367, Nov. 2020.
  53. M. Krumm, P. A. Höhn, and M. P. Müller, “Quantum reference frame transformations as symmetries and the paradox of the third particle,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 530, 2021.
  54. C. Rovelli, “Relational quantum mechanics,” Int. J. Theor. Phys., vol. 35, no. 8, pp. 1637–1678, 1996.
  55. 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,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 119, no. 24, p. 240401, 2017.
  56. C. Marletto and V. Vedral, “Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 119, no. 24, p. 240402, 2017.
  57. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1973.
  58. N. Stritzelberger and A. Kempf, “Coherent delocalization in the light-matter interaction,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 101, no. 3, p. 036007, 2020.
  59. F. Giacomini and A. Kempf, “Second-quantized Unruh-DeWitt detectors and their quantum reference frame transformations,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 105, no. 12, p. 125001, 2022.
  60. M. J. Lake, M. Miller, R. F. Ganardi, Z. Liu, S.-D. Liang, and T. Paterek, “Generalised uncertainty relations from superpositions of geometries,” Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 36, no. 15, p. 155012, 2019.
  61. N. H. Lindner and A. Peres, “Testing quantum superpositions of the gravitational field with Bose-Einstein condensates,” Phys. Rev. A, vol. 71, no. 2, p. 024101, 2005.
  62. T. Westphal, H. Hepach, J. Pfaff, and M. Aspelmeyer, “Measurement of gravitational coupling between millimetre-sized masses,” Nature, vol. 591, no. 7849, pp. 225–228, 2021.
  63. B. S. DeWitt, “Point transformations in quantum mechanics,” Phys. Rev., vol. 85, pp. 653–661, 1952.
  64. B. S. DeWitt, “Dynamical theory in curved spaces. I. A review of the classical and quantum action principles,” Rev. Mod. Phys., vol. 29, no. 3, p. 377, 1957.
  65. E. S. Fradkin, D. Gitman, and S. M. Shvartsman, “Path integral for a relativistic-particle theory,” EPL (Europhysics Letters), vol. 15, no. 3, p. 241, 1991.
  66. T. Padmanabhan, “Path integral for the relativistic particle and harmonic oscillators,” Found. Phys., vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 1543–1562, 1994.
  67. E. Poisson, A. Pound, and I. Vega, “The motion of point particles in curved spacetime,” Living Reviews in Relativity, vol. 14, no. 1, p. 7, 2011.
  68. P. M. Alsing, J. C. Evans, and K. K. Nandi, “The phase of a quantum mechanical particle in curved spacetime,” Gen. Relativ. Gravit., vol. 33, no. 9, pp. 1459–1487, 2001.
  69. R. B. Griffiths, “Consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics using quantum trajectories,” Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 70, no. 15, p. 2201, 1993.
  70. J. J. Halliwell, “A review of the decoherent histories approach to quantum mechanics,” arXiv preprint gr-qc/9407040, 1994.
  71. J. Cotler and F. Wilczek, “Entangled histories,” Phys. Scr, vol. 2016, no. T168, p. 014004, 2016.
  72. M. Zych, F. Costa, I. Pikovski, and Č. Brukner, “Quantum interferometric visibility as a witness of general relativistic proper time,” Nat. Commun., vol. 2, p. 505, 2011.
  73. M. Reisenberger and C. Rovelli, “Spacetime states and covariant quantum theory,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 65, no. 12, p. 125016, 2002.
  74. C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity. Cambridge University Press, 2004.
  75. D. Marolf, “Refined algebraic quantization: Systems with a single constraint,” Banach Center Publications, vol. 39, 09 1995.
  76. J. B. Hartle and D. Marolf, “Comparing formulations of generalized quantum mechanics for reparametrization - invariant systems,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 56, pp. 6247–6257, 1997.
  77. Springer Science & Business Media, 2013.
Citations (31)
View on Semantic Scholar

Summary

No one has generated a summary of this paper yet.

Sign Up to Summarize

Paper to Video (Beta)

No one has generated a video about this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate All Videos Subscribe on YouTube

Whiteboard

No one has generated a whiteboard explanation for this paper yet.

Sign Up to Generate

Open Problems

We haven't generated a list of open problems mentioned in this paper yet.

Generate Now

Continue Learning

We haven't generated follow-up questions for this paper yet.

Generate Now

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

Sign Up