, YURIA RAHI AHATATI ¢ ¥ universe Article (ibe On the Significance of Interferometric Revivals for the Fundamental Description of Gravity Ki cheek for pastes (ation: Stroy Ks Temas, 1S; esi. MLB On the Sigcance Fundamental Dscrption of Gi Unberse 2022, 8,58. hp /doorg/ 039%/unieenes02005 Academic itor: Gio Francesco ‘di, Lace Bonin, Gseppe Caetano Lacan, Lane Patrursell an Les Salone eee: 24 December 231 Accepted 4 January 222 Publis 16 Jansary 202 Publishers Note: MIDPTctysrewta seth eae anita ann btn ups and sittin af Copyright: © 202 by the autor. LUcenace MDP, Bus, Switzerland Ths article sam open acess aie ebuted under the Yee ant inition (CC BY) hens Os 7 ranercenmens or ames/y/ don cng AO 2940 /arverseB0DOO8S Streltsov *©, Julen Simon Pedernales @ and Martin Bodo Plenio Institut far Theoretcche Physik und 1QST, Albert Einstein: Allee 11, Universit Ulm, D S208 Us, Germany: julenpederales@uni-ulin de (SP); martin plenio@univulm de (MBP) * Corresponuence: kill steltsovetuni~ulmade Abstract: We show that an interaction between a harmonic oscillator and a two-level test mass (TLTM) mediated by a local operations and classical communication (LOCC) channel produces a signatuce that in (D. Carney et al, PRX Quantum 2, 030330 (2021) is claimed to be exclusively reserved for channels that can transmit quantum information. We provide an explicit example based ‘ona measurement-and-feedback channel, explain where the proof of Carney et al. fails, discuss to what degree setups of this type can test the nature ofthe gravitational interaction and remark on some fundamental implications that an LOCC model of gravity may have in black hole physics. Keywords: theories of gravitation; black holes; Kraus representation Come cue 1. Introduction a ‘The reconciliation of duantum mechanics and. govin(p long-standing open problem in physics, but progress towards a satisfying solution fds long been hindered by the inaeecniiity F the necessary experimental conditions. The ambition to perform tests that target the question of whether gravity in fact needs to be quantized [I~] goes back at least as far as 1957 but has seen a considerable gain in momentum six decades later with the recent remarkable progress in the control ofthe quantum degrees of freedom of massive objects (5-8) Proposed tests aim at detecting modifications to the unitary evolution predicted by quantum mechanics [9-12] or ask whether gravity can entangle two parties as this would falsify the assumption of a classical force carzier and thereby conclude the non-classical nature of the gravitational interaction {4,13]. Proposals that aim to realize such tests include 314-19] which add to other tests based on superpositions of source masses [20-24] Nevertheless, with the current state ofthe art these proposals are sill extremely challenging to realize in practice 25,26. In their recent work [27], Camey, Miller and Taylor propose an interesting interfero- metric scheme for testing the ability ofthe gravitational interaction to act as a quantum channel under what appear tobe significantly reduced experimental constraints. Notably, their proposal makes use of alight test mass in a double-well potential that is gravitationally interacting with a very heavy source mass which, however, does not need to be prepared ina pure quantum state, thus enabling the use of even larger and more massive particles, ‘The central claim of [27]is that under very reasonable assumptions a model of gravity, in which the interaction is mediated by a clasical channel, can not produce the collapse and revival dynamics inthe interferometric contrast ofthe test mass generated by a quantum, gravitational interaction. Even more remarkably the signature ofthe quantum interaction renhanced by a finite temperature ofthe heavy source mass facilitating the discrimination lof the two cases. Ta this work, we explicitly construct a local operations and classical communications (LOCC) channel between a harmonic oscillator and a particle ina double-well potential, tts /sewwe ma com journal universe Dipindai dengan CamScannerNama : Yuriza Rahmahayati Nim : 2230107023 Surusan Tadris Fisika Pendulum Swing: Principles of Physics and Applications in Everyday Life Pendulum swing is a simple object that is often used in the study of physics. The pendulum swing serves as a tool that aids in understanding important concepts, such as, harmonic oscillations, gravi ional fields, and mechanical energy. In addition, pendulum swings also have practical applications in everyday life, such as in mechanical clocks or in calculating swing speed. A pendulum swing is a simple object that has basic principles in physics and has many applications in everyday life. This article will discuss the basic principles of pendulum swings, their applications in everyday life, and the benefits of using them. = The pendulum swing consists of a metal ball suspended from a rope or cable. ~ Harmonic oscillation is the movement of metal balls back and forth due to the influence of gravity. ~ The pendulum swing period is determined by the length of the string, gravity, and the mass of the metal ball ~ Pendulum swing is often used in calculating the time and speed of swing in mechanical clocks. - The swing of the pendulum can also be used in measuring the acceleration of gravity and the earth's gravitational field. Dipindai dengan CamScannerverse 2022, 8,58 that is fully compatible with the conditions of the proof in [27] and reproduces the collapse and-revival dynamics in the interferometric signal. This allows us to identify the error in the proof and leads us to the conclusion that the protocol presented in [27] does not constitute a sufficient test to determine the nature of the gravitational interaction. We then procced to discuss certain tests of LOCC models and analyse the consequences of such LOCC models for the physics of black holes. « wey 2. Revivals Duc to a Coherent Interaction ‘The system studied in [27] consists ofa large particle (A) wept fp Nari potential and an atom (B) trapped in a double-well potential as shown in Figure 1. The ‘ouble-well potential localizes the atom to two positions allowing an effective description of the spatial degree of freedom’as 8 two-level system that we call a two-level test mass (TLTM). We, therefore, set the pdsition operator of the atom to the Pauli z matrix xp = Ios ‘with the eigenstates |L) and |R), which correspond to the atom occupying the left and right ‘well, respectively and the factor | denotes the separation distance between the two wells. ‘The two systems interact gravitationally via a linearized Newtonian potential leading to the following Hamiltonian H = hata t ig(a+a*)oz, qa) ‘with at and a denoting the creation and annihilation operators of the harmonic oscillator. For brevity, the energy splitting term for the TLTM has been omitted as one can always transform into a rotating frame without affecting the interaction term. Up to a global phase, the evolution operator for Hamiltonian (1) can be written as [27] U(t) = D*(oA)e“™*"*D(e2A), @ = = g/w and D(e:A) = exp[(Aa' - Ata)oz] denoting the standard displacement Alor, LOCC Channel ‘Quantum Channel H= gro; ~ "Gravitational interaction re 1. A particle trapped in a harmonic potential (leffj and thermal state interacts seviationally witha lighter parte ina doublesvel potential (right). te gravitational interaction isinherently classical it must admit an effective description asa local operations and classical commu nications (LOCC) channel (upper half) between the two quantum systems. This fa Pte necessitates, the conversion of quantum information into classical information via a Mndasweernen ieading to ae therefore heating ofthe quantum systems (lightning bolt). This decoherence can be dete ineteonti measurement on the lighter mass (see main text for details). Contrary to this cas, if he gravitational interaction can be modeled as a quantum channel no excess decoherence is expected in the interferometric signal (lower pat). Dipindai dengan CamScanner3of1l _ 922, 8,58 ‘The aim of the protocol proposed in (27] is to create a witness for the entangling character of the gravitational interaction. For that matter they propose to initialize the hharmonic oscillator in its ground state |0) , and the TLTM in a superposition of the ¢: cigenstates |L)p and |R)p. This leads to the following evolution 1 vin) = HO), ©) y +R) = ell e+ F-AiRD ©) where [+8) denote coherent states with amplitudes 6 = + A(e~M" — 1). The interaction term leads to opposite displacements of the oscillator depending on the TLTM state, thus building-up entanglement. In a final step, a /2-pulse is applied to the TLTM mapping the signal to a population difference in the z basis and leading to the final state 1 1 Wy) = 5 (184 +1-4)4) @ [Ln + 5(18)4 1-84) O18) @ “The population of the [L), TLTM state is subsequently measured leading to the following signal 7 aly geen? (wtr2) 6 Pall) = 5(1 +6 . 6) Furthermore, an analogous calculation with the oscillator in a thermal initial state, with ‘mean occupation number fi, yields (1eeerennsttora), 6 tt / + ‘We observe that this function is oscillating with the frequency of the oscillator and is unity (for imultiples of t = 27t/co. At these times the oscillator returns to its initial state and re entanglement between the two systems vanishes which can be seen in the form of Equation (6) given above. This property is nat only preserved for thermal initial states of the oscillator but the contrast in the collapse and revival is even enhanced, significantly relaxing the experimental conditions required to observe it. ‘The central result of [27]is that the oscillatory signal produced by the coherent coupling, term in Equation (1) isa signature of a quantum interaction that can not be reproduced by a classical one, ie,,by a separable quantum channel. In the next section, we give an explicit counterexample to this claim. 3. LOCC Model In this section, we present a model where the position of the harmonic oscillator (A) is continuously measured via a homodyne measurement and the results are applied to the TLTM (B) via feedback. The phase of the TLTM is simultaneously measured via another homodyne measurement and fed back to the oscillator creating an interaction that can transmit classical information between both systems but is incapable of creating entanglement. The conditional state of a harmonic oscillator subject to a homodyne measurement is governed by the following stochastic master equation (SME) [25] paw Ho, paw)dt + 07D |z]pawdt +adWaH{z]paw, a hi ‘with Hp denoting the free evolution Hamiltonian, D[x] the standard Lindbald dissipator and [2] H{xip = xp + px! — (x+2')p. (8) Dipindai dengan CamScanner40811 _ +7922, 8,58 ‘AW denotes a Gaussian noise term with zero mean E[dW/4] = O and variance E[aW3] = dt. The position of the oscillator is encoded in the homodyne current produced by the ‘measurement Talt) = 2a(x) + dWa(t)/dt. 1) Before we discuss the feedback we derive the SME for a TLTM subjected to a ho- modyne measurement in greater detail. The Kraus operators describing the continuous measurement of the TLTM in the -basis are proportional tothe |1)(1| projector and given by k= Bo. + tv, ao) Ko Pitti ay However, we study a model where the interaction induces a phase on the TLTM without changing the population in the 2-basis, hence we choose to instead measure that phase by projecting on the |:t) eigenstates ofthe o; operator. The corresponding Kraus operators are given by the linear combinationg of bperators for the z-basis measurement [29] 1 _B ) Ks Jq(s oe+0va F fo: + 1M). 2) ‘The corresponding POVM is Ex = Kike = (1 plo. +8)Val) (13) “This leads to a SME that depends on the measurement outcomes dps = (28VE- Flot nar)a[ fee + nox] + eat. a4) Note that the dissipator is equivalent to the dephasing term e Diese = Feces — 0) ro) ‘The dependence on the measurement result only enters the first term dM(t) = +Vai in Equation (14). It is easy to show that this term obeys Gaussian statistics EldM(t)] =f(cz+1)dt, — E[4M(1)?] ft. (16) Furthermore, we note that the mean corresponds to the second term in Equation (14) which enables us to rewrite Equation (14) in terms of a ze jan noise we pee bie ero-mean Gaussian noise term that apasy = FDleclonwat + Eaws(1) release 7) Note that we have omitted the Hamiltonian term for the TI is irrelevant analysis. Finally, we identify the homodyne current as eee Leer Int) = Bos +1) + dWo(t)/dt. 08) Having obtained a classical stream of information for each system in the form of two homo- dyne currents we now set out to couple them via feedback. Itis important tonote that the ‘measurement results encoded in J4(t) and Jp(t) are not experimentally accessible as they model an intemal process of the gravitational interaction. To determine the experimentally Dipindai dengan CamScannerrinerse 2022, 8,58 sont observable quantities we have to obtain the unconditional state of the system, i. we have toaverage over the noise terms dW(!)- ‘Werdefer the details ofthis calculation to Appendix A. Here, we note that our LOC channel consists of two parts, each containing a measurement on one system and feedback onthe other. Each part yields the following contribution tothe master equation SMF + ME, p| + D[M ~iFlp. (9) {here the measurement operator M acts on system i and the feedback operator F acts on system j. Combining these two parts yields a master equation in Lindblad form as the terms proportional to FpM cancel ; 2 + tt,p ~ isp - ieee + 2x2DIalp +E DIos. (20) ‘Werecognize the linear coupling term asit also appears inthe expansion of the gravitational potential [19], showing that this model reproduces the phenomenology of the gravitational interaction. Furthermore, we note that it Gist leads to the appearance of revivals in the protocol of [27] which we ate with a numerical simulation in Figure 2. The difference of this model to one with a purely quantum interaction isthe appearance of decoherence terms in very muich the same way as inthe LOCC coupling of tivo harmonic oscillators {10}. This dynamical equation by construction corresponds to a classical interaction channel that can not generate entanglement. Yet, it contains a term that, ‘according to the proof of [27], is incompatible with an LOCC channel. In the next section, ‘we explore the origin of this discrepancy. v wt 7 wir Time [1/1] Figure 2. Revivals in the population ofthe |L) state of the TLTM for different initial thermal states ‘of the oscilator for the model in Equation (20) and the protocol described in Section 2. For the simulations presented here, we chose 2s = 22? = 62/2 = 0.05 w. 4. Product Form Kraus Representation for the LOCC Model Given a master equation in diagonal Lindblad form x lial) (Evel ~{E1E.e}). en ‘one can immediately determine the Kraus representation to be [25] Ha n= 1- FHF) eed, 1 = Eva. 2) 4 ‘This is the same form as chosen in [27]. For Equation (20) we have Ey = 3, E: = oz and 4a Hamiltonian with an interaction term H = H+ 2afixc. Tis this term that makes this Ehannel seemingly non-separable by the arguments presented in [27], However, the Kraus Dipindai dengan CamScannerGott operator are not unique but can be subjected to a unitary transformation without changing the underlying operation. Therefore, a statement about the separability of a channel can rot be made based on a specific Kraus decomposition, rather it has to be shown that no separable decomposition exists. ‘Tofind a separable Kraus representation for the LOCC model presented in the previous section we stat with Equation (19). While it models only a uni-directional interaction the inverse channel is completely symmetric, hence the form of its Kraus operators will be identical but with measurement and feedback operators interchanged. These two sets of operatorscan then be readily combined to yield a separable representation for Equation (20). Note that Equation (19) does not contain the Ho term present in Equation (20) because it is notrelevant for our analysis and can be easly added to the final form of the Kraus operators in the same way as the Hamiltonian term in Equation (22). By the above procedure, we ‘read off the Kraus operators for Equation (19) Ge 1, = (M- iF) vat. Lies —5(MP + Fat, imFat ~ 5( ) 23) ‘Here we assumed M = Mt. L; is not of product form as it is a sum of two product form ‘operators that are both proportional to “furthermore the term iMFal also prevents us {rom writing Lo in product form. We now apply the unitary transformation vat 7): 2 obtaining the following Kraus operators, b= y(t-(o-ieyvar— intra — hoe sea), (25) 1 i i Liye L y(n vai—inrar— Le + ya, ‘These can now be written in product form. 1 box E(t mvai- pa) @ (1 irvai— 3a), 8) 1 b= ats avai Lata) o (1 eval ja) @ ‘To obtain the action of both parts of the LOCC channel we need a second set of Kraus ‘operators {L5, 4} with operators ini mus in Cetchona ae ee ep memceaiend Both etd mnt be comlond i which produces ttl of four Kaus operators that by construction main separable Seen te form of he Kraus operators obtained here and those used inthe root [27] we: : lize a crucial difference: the presence of terms proportional to Vdf in all Kraus ‘operators. Its the restriction to linear terms in dt for the Lq operator that leads Carney et al. to the erroneous conclusion that a separable channel can not produce an interaction term asit appears in Equation (20). We, therefore, conclude thatthe absence of revivals can rot serve as a conclusive test ofthe quantum nature of gravity. However, the LOCC model does introduce additional decoherence which can in principle be experimentally measured. (8) Dipindai dengan CamScanner