Quick Navigation

Topics

Quantum Gravity Relativistic Quantum Information

On the quantum nature of strong gravity

arXiv
Authors: Felipe Sobrero, Luca Abrahão, Thiago Guerreiro

Year

2026

Paper ID

3164

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

140

Citations

N/A

Abstract

Belenchia et al. [Phys. Rev. D 98, 126009 (2018)] have analyzed a gedankenexperiment where two observers, Alice and Bob, attempt to communicate via superluminal signals using a superposition of massive particles dressed by Newtonian fields and a test particle as field detector. Quantum fluctuations in the particle motion and in the field prevent signaling or violations of quantum mechanics in this setup. We reformulate this thought experiment by considering gravitational waves emitted by an extended quadrupolar object as a detector for Newtonian tidal fields. We find that quantum fluctuations in the gravitational waves prevent signaling. In the Newtonian limit, rotating black holes behave as extended quadrupolar objects, as consequence of the strong equivalence principle. It follows that consistency of the Newtonian limit of general relativity with quantum mechanics requires the quantization of gravitational radiation, even when the waves originate in strong gravity sources.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Quantum Gravity & Relativistic Quantum Information research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2026 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • Belenchia et al.

Paper Tools

Become a member to use research tools

Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.

Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share Cite This Paper Copy URL Compare Copy DOI Add to Reading List Category Correction Request

References & Citation Signals

Local Citation Graph (Related-Paper Links)

Current Paper #3164

External citation index: OpenAlex citation signal

Community Reactions

Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.

Score: 0
Likes: 0 Dislikes: 0

Sign in to react to this paper.

Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)

Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)

No written reviews yet.