Element contents
Quantum Gravity in a Laboratory?
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 July 2023
Summary
The characteristic – Planck – energy scale of quantum gravity makes experimental access to the relevant physics apparently impossible. Nevertheless, low energy experiments linking gravity and the quantum have been undertaken: the Page and Geilker quantum Cavendish experiment, and the Colella-Overhauser-Werner neutron interferometry experiment, for instance. However, neither probes states in which gravity remains in a coherent quantum superposition, unlike – it is claimed – recent proposals. In essence, if two initially unentangled subsystems interacting solely via gravity become entangled, then theorems of quantum mechanics show that gravity cannot be a classical subsystem. There are formidable challenges to such an experiment, but remarkably, tabletop technology into the gravity of very small bodies has advanced to the point that such an experiment might be feasible in the near future. This Element explains the proposal and what it aims to show, highlighting the important ways in which its interpretation is theory-laden.
Keywords
- Type
- Element
- Information
- Online ISBN: 9781009327541Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication: 03 August 2023
References
Adlam, E. (2022), “Tabletop experiments for quantum gravity are also tests of the interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Foundations of Physics 52(5), 115.Google Scholar
Altamirano, N., Corona-Ugalde, P., Mann, R. B. and Zych, M. (2018), “Gravity is not a pairwise local classical channel,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 35(14), 145005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amelino-Camelia, G. (2013), “Quantum-spacetime phenomenology,” Living Reviews in Relativity 16(1), 1–137.Google Scholar
Anastopoulos, C. and Hu, B. L. (2014), “Problems with the Newton–Schrödinger equations,” New Journal of Physics 16(8), 085007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anastopoulos, C. and Hu, B. L. (2015), “Probing a gravitational cat state,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 32(16), 165022.Google Scholar
Anastopoulos, C. and Hu, B. L. (2018), “Comment on ‘a spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity’ and on ‘gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity,’ ” arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.11315.Google Scholar
Anastopoulos, C. and Hu, B. L. (2022), “Gravity, quantum fields and quantum information: Problems with classical channel and stochastic theories,” Entropy 24(4), 490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anastopoulos, C., Lagouvardos, M. and Savvidou, N. (2021), “Gravitational effects in macroscopic quantum systems: A first-principles analysis,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 38(15), 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderl, S. (2018), “Simplicity and simplification in astrophysical modeling,” Philosophy of Science 85(5), 819–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ávila, P., Okon, E., Sudarsky, D. and Wiedemann, M. (2022), “Quantum spatial superpositions and the possibility of superluminal signaling,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2204.01190.Google Scholar
Ballentine, L. E. (1982), “Comment on ‘indirect evidence for quantum gravity,’ ” Physical Review Letters 48(7), 522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beauchemin, P.-H. (2020), “Signature-based model-independent searches at the large hadron collider: An experimental strategy aiming at safeness in a theory-dependent way,” Philosophy of Science 87(5), 1234–1245.Google Scholar
Belenchia, A., Wald, R. M., Giacomini, F. et al. (2018), “Quantum superposition of massive objects and the quantization of gravity,” Physical Review D 98(12), 126009.Google Scholar
Berry, M. (1982), “Wavelength-independent fringe spacing in rainbows from falling neutrons,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General 15(8), L385.Google Scholar
Bohm, D., Hiley, B. J. and Kaloyerou, P. N. (1987), “An ontological basis for the quantum theory,” Physics Reports 144(6), 321–375.Google Scholar
Bose, S., Mazumdar, A., Morley, G. W. et al. (2017), “Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity,” Physical Review Letters 119(24), 240401.Google Scholar
Bose, S., Mazumdar, A., Schut, M. and Toroš, M. (2022), “Two mechanisms for quantum natured gravitons to entangle masses,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2201.03583.Google Scholar
Brown, H. R. (1996), ‘Bovine metaphysics: Remarks on the significance of the gravitational phase effect in quantum mechanics’ Clifton, R., ed., in Perspectives on quantum reality, Springer, pp. 183–193.Google Scholar
Burgess, C. P. (2004), “Quantum gravity in everyday life: General relativity as an effective field theory,” Living Reviews in Relativity 7(1), 1–56.Google Scholar
Carney, D., Stamp, P. C. and Taylor, J. M. (2019), “Tabletop experiments for quantum gravity: A user’s manual,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 36(3), 034001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, L.-Q., Giacomini, F. and Rovelli, C. (2022), “Quantum states of fields for quantum split sources,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2207.10592.Google Scholar
Christian, J. (1997), “Exactly soluble sector of quantum gravity,” Physical Review D 56(8), 4844.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christodoulou, M., Di Biagio, A., Aspelmeyer, M. et al. (2022), “Locally mediated entanglement through gravity from first principles,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2202.03368.Google Scholar
Christodoulou, M., Di Biagio, A., Howl, R. and Rovelli, C. (2022), “Gravity entanglement, quantum reference systems, degrees of freedom,” Classical and Quantum Gravity.Google Scholar
Christodoulou, M. and Rovelli, C. (2019), “On the possibility of laboratory evidence for quantum superposition of geometries,” Physics Letters B 792, 64–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colella, R., Overhauser, A. W. and Werner, S. A. (1975), “Observation of gravitationally induced quantum interference,” Physical Review Letters 34(23), 1472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crowther, K. and Linnemann, N. (2019), “Renormalizability, fundamentality, and a final theory: The role of UV-completion in the search for quantum gravity,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 70(2), 377–406.Google Scholar
Crowther, K., Linnemann, N. and Wüthrich, C. (2021), “What we cannot learn from analogue experiments,” Synthese 198(16), 3701–3726.Google Scholar
Danielson, D. L., Satishchandran, G. and Wald, R. M. (2022), “Gravitationally mediated entanglement: Newtonian field versus gravitons,” Physical Review D 105(8), 086001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dardashti, R., Thébault, K. P. Y. and Winsberg, E. (2017), “Confirmation via analogue simulation: What dumb holes could tell us about gravity,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 68(1), 55–89.Google Scholar
Dawid, R. (2013), String theory and the scientific method, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Deutsch, D. and Marletto, C. (2015), “Constructor theory of information,” Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 471(2174), 20140540.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Diósi, L. (1989), “Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations,” Physical Review A 40(3), 1165.Google Scholar
Dürr, D., Goldstein, S. and Zanghi, N. (1992), “Quantum mechanics, randomness, and deterministic reality,” Physics Letters A 172(1–2), 6–12.Google Scholar
Ehlers, J. (2019), “Republication of: On the Newtonian limit of Einstein’s theory of gravitation,” General Relativity and Gravitation 51(12), 1–20.Google Scholar
Elder, J. (2022), “On the ‘direct detection’ of gravitational waves,” PhilSci-Archive preprint: philsci-archive.pitt.edu/21944/.Google Scholar
Fragkos, V., Kopp, M. and Pikovski, I. (2022), “On inference of quantization from gravitationally induced entanglement,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.00558.Google Scholar
Franklin, A. D. (2017), “Is seeing believing?: Observation in physics,” Physics in Perspective 19(4), 321–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galley, T. D., Giacomini, F. and Selby, J. H. (2022), “A no-go theorem on the nature of the gravitational field beyond quantum theory,” Quantum 6, 779.Google Scholar
Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A. and Weber, T. (1986), “Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems,” Physical review D 34(2), 470.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenberger, D. M. and Overhauser, A. (1979), “Coherence effects in neutron diffraction and gravity experiments,” Reviews of Modern Physics 51(1), 43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberger, D. M. and Overhauser, A. W. (1980), “The role of gravity in quantum theory,” Scientific American 242(5), 66–77.Google Scholar
Großardt, A. (2021), “Comment on ‘do Gedankenexperiments compel quantization of gravity,’ ” arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.14666.Google Scholar
Gueguen, M. (2020), “On robustness in cosmological simulations,” Philosophy of Science 87(5), 1197–1208.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1984), “Experimentation and scientific realism.” Tauber, A. I., ed., in Science and the Quest for Reality, Springer, pp. 162–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacking, I. (1988), “Philosophers of experiment,” in PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, Vol. 1988, Cambridge University Press, pp. 147–156.Google Scholar
Hacking, I. (1992), “The self-vindication of the laboratory sciences,” in Pickering, A., ed., Science as Practice and Culture, Chicago University Press, pp. 29–64.Google Scholar
Haine, S. A. (2021), “Searching for signatures of quantum gravity in quantum gases,” New Journal of Physics 23(3), 033020.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, M. J. and Reginatto, M. (2018), “On two recent proposals for witnessing nonclassical gravity,” Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical 51(8), 085303.Google Scholar
Hartle, J. B. and Horowitz, G. T. (1981), “Ground-state expectation value of the metric in the 1/N or semiclassical approximation to quantum gravity,” Physical Review D 24(2), 257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hesse, M. B. (2005), Forces and fields: The concept of action at a distance in the history of physics, Courier Corporation.Google Scholar
Hossenfelder, S. (2013), “Minimal length scale scenarios for quantum gravity,” Living Reviews in Relativity 16(1), 1–90.Google Scholar
Howl, R., Vedral, V., Naik, D. et al. (2021), “Non-gaussianity as a signature of a quantum theory of gravity,” PRX Quantum 2(1), 010325.Google Scholar
Hu, B. L. and Verdaguer, E. (2020), Semiclassical and stochastic gravity: Quantum field effects on curved spacetime, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hu, B. L. and Verdaguer, E. (2008), “Stochastic gravity: Theory and applications,” Living Reviews in Relativity 11(1), 1–112.Google Scholar
Huggett, N. and Callender, C. (2001), “Why quantize gravity (or any other field for that matter)?,” Philosophy of Science 68(S3), S382–S394.Google Scholar
Huggett, N. and Wüthrich, C. (2020), “Out of nowhere: The ‘emergence’ of spacetime in string theory,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2005.10943.Google Scholar
Jacobson, T. (1995), “Thermodynamics of spacetime: The Einstein equation of state,” Physical Review Letters 75(7), 1260.Google Scholar
Kafri, D., Milburn, G. and Taylor, J. (2015), “Bounds on quantum communication via Newtonian gravity,” New Journal of Physics 17(1), 015006.Google Scholar
Kafri, D., Taylor, J. and Milburn, G. (2014), “A classical channel model for gravitational decoherence,” New Journal of Physics 16(6), 065020.Google Scholar
Karaca, K. (2017), “A case study in experimental exploration: Exploratory data selection at the large hadron collider,” Synthese 194(2), 333–354.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1962), “The structure of scientific revolutions,” International Encyclopedia of Unified Science 2(2), XV–172.Google Scholar
Kuhn, T. S. (1977 b), “Objectivity, value judgment, and theory choice,” in Arguing about science, pp. 74–86.Google Scholar
Latour, B. (1987), Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Lin, H. (2022), “Bayesian epistemology,” in Zalta, E. N. and Nodelman, U., eds., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University.Google Scholar
Malament, D. B. (1995), “Is Newtonian cosmology really inconsistent?,” Philosophy of Science 62(4), 489–510.Google Scholar
Malament, D. B. (2012), Topics in the foundations of general relativity and Newtonian gravitation theory, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Mannheim, P. D. (1998), “Classical underpinnings of gravitationally induced quantum interference,” Physical Review A 57(2), 1260.Google Scholar
Marletto, C. and Vedral, V. (2017 a), “Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity,” Physical Review Letters 119(24),240402.Google Scholar
Marletto, C. and Vedral, V. (2017 b), “Witnessing the quantumness of a system by observing only its classical features,” npj Quantum Information 3(1), 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marletto, C. and Vedral, V. (2019), “Answers to a few questions regarding the bmv experiment,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1907.08994.Google Scholar
Marletto, C. and Vedral, V. (2020), “Witnessing nonclassicality beyond quantum theory,” Physical Review D 102(8), 086012.Google Scholar
Marshall, W., Simon, C., Penrose, R. and Bouwmeester, D. (2003), “Towards quantum superpositions of a mirror,” Physical Review Letters 91(13), 130401.Google Scholar
Marshman, R. J., Mazumdar, A. and Bose, S. (2020), “Locality and entanglement in table-top testing of the quantum nature of linearized gravity,” Physical Review A 101(5), 052110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Møller, C. (1962), “Les théories relativistes de la gravitation,” Colloques Internationaux CNRS 91(1), 15–29.Google Scholar
Okon, E. and Callender, C. (2011), “Does quantum mechanics clash with the equivalence principle—and does it matter?,” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 1(1), 133–145.Google Scholar
Overhauser, A. and Colella, R. (1974), “Experimental test of gravitationally induced quantum interference,” Physical Review Letters 33(20), 1237.Google Scholar
Padmanabhan, T. (2014), “General relativity from a thermodynamic perspective,” General Relativity and Gravitation 46(3), 1–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, D. N. and Geilker, C. (1981), “Indirect evidence for quantum gravity,” Physical Review Letters 47(14), 979.Google Scholar
Penrose, R. (1994), “Non-locality and objectivity in quantum state,” in Anandan, J. S., Safko, J. L., . eds., Quantum coherence and reality: In celebration of the 60th birthday of Yakir Aharonov-Proceedings of the International Conference On Fundamental Aspects of Quantum Theory. World Scientific, pp. 238–246.Google Scholar
Pradeu, T., Lemoine, M., Khelfaoui, M. and Gingras, Y. (2021), “Philosophy in science: Can philosophers of science permeate through science and produce scientific knowledge?,” British Journal for the Philosophy of Science, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/715518.Google Scholar
Raju, S. (2022), “Failure of the split property in gravity and the information paradox,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 39(6), 064002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenfeld, L. (1963), “On quantization of fields,” Nuclear Physics 40, 353–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roura, A. and Verdaguer, E. (2008), “Cosmological perturbations from stochastic gravity,” Physics Review D 78, 064010.Google Scholar
Rovenchak, A. and Krynytskyi, Y. (2018), “Radiation of the electromagnetic field beyond the dipole approximation,” American Journal of Physics 86(10), 727–732.Google Scholar
Rubino, G., Rozema, L. A., Feix, A. et al. (2017), “Experimental verification of an indefinite causal order,” Science Advances 3(3), e1602589.Google Scholar
Rydving, E., Aurell, E. and Pikovski, I. (2021), “Do Gedanken experiments compel quantization of gravity?,” Physical Review D 104(8), 086024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salecker, H. and Wigner, E. (1997), “Quantum limitations of the measurement of space-time distances,” Wightman, A. S., ed., in Part I: Particles and Fields. Part II: Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Springer, pp. 148–154.Google Scholar
Thébault, K. P. (2016), “What can we learn from analogue experiments?,” arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.05028.Google Scholar
Vedral, V. (2006), “Witnessing quantum entanglement,” in Introduction to Quantum Information Science, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Visser, M. (2002), “Sakharov’s induced gravity: A modern perspective,” Modern Physics Letters A 17(15n17), 977–991.Google Scholar
Wallace, D. (2022), “Quantum gravity at low energies,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science 94, 31–46.Google Scholar
Weatherall, J. O. (2014), “What is a singularity in geometrized Newtonian gravitation?,” Philosophy of Science 81(5), 1077–1089.Google Scholar
Weatherall, J. O. and Manchak, J. B. (2014), “The geometry of conventionality,” Philosophy of Science 81(2), 233–247.Google Scholar
Zimmermann, F. (2018), “Future colliders for particle physics—‘big and small,’ ” Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research Section A: Accelerators, Spectrometers, Detectors and Associated Equipment 909, 33–37.Google Scholar
- 5
- Cited by