Quick Navigation

Topics

Trapped Ion Quantum Computing

The equivalence principle and inertial-gravitational decoherence

arXiv
Authors: Giorgio Torrieri

Year

2022

Paper ID

58342

Status

Preprint

Abstract Read

~2 min

Abstract Words

142

Citations

N/A

Abstract

This work is divided into two parts. The first examines recent proposals for "witnessing" quantum gravity via entanglement from the point of view of Bronstein's original objection to a quantization of gravity. Using techniques from open quantum systems we sketch how unavoidable decoherence from both inertial and gravitational backreaction between probe and detector could spoil the experimental detection of the quantization of gravity. We argue that this "failure" is actually an inherent feature of any quantum description that attempts to incorporate the equivalence principle exactly within quantum dynamics. In the second part, we speculate on how an exact realization of the equivalence principle might be implemented in an effective quantum field theory via the general covariance of correlators. While we are far from giving an explicit construction of such a theory we point out some features and consequences of such a program.

Why This Paper Matters

  • This paper contributes to the Trapped-Ion Quantum Computing research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
  • It adds a 2022 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
  • This work is divided into two parts.

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 #58342

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.