- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Open Access
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Subsystems independence in gravitationally induced entanglement proposals

Nicolas Boulle1,* and Guilherme Franzmann2,3,4,†

  • *Contact author: nicolas.boulle@miun.se
  • †Contact author: guilherme.franzmann@su.se
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 114, 025015 – Published 21 July, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/tgjx-y7hl

Abstract

Recent proposals suggest that detecting entanglement between two spatially superposed masses would establish the quantum nature of gravity. However, these gravitationally induced entanglement (GIE) experiments rely on assumptions about subsystem independence. We sharpen the theoretical underpinnings of such proposals by examining them through the lens of algebraic quantum field theory, distinguishing operational and algebraic notions of independence. We argue that state and measurement independence of subsystems, essential to the experimental logic, is nontrivial in the presence of gauge constraints and gravitational dressing. Using gravitationally dressed fields, we recall that commutation relations between spacelike separated observables are nontrivial, undermining strict Hilbert space factorization. We further explore the implications for entanglement witnesses, investigating the Tsirelson bound when subsystem algebras fail to commute, and showing that the bound persists for a suitably symmetrized Clauser–Horne–Shimony–Holt observable even though the operational status of such “joint” observables becomes delicate when commutativity is lost. Our analysis highlights how, even within linearized covariant quantum gravity, violations of microcausality may affect the interpretation, modeling, and design of proposed laboratory tests of quantum gravity, despite remaining negligible for current experimental regimes. Although we consider GIE-style protocols as a concrete case study, the subsystem-independence issues we highlight are generic to low-energy (perturbative) quantum gravity. Finally, we derive estimates for dressing-induced microcausality violations, which suggest a complementary avenue to current proposals as a probe of the quantum nature of gravity (likely far beyond current experimental sensitivity, though).

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (66)

  1. D. Wallace, Quantum gravity at low energies, arXiv:2112.12235.
  2. V. Fragkos, M. Kopp, and I. Pikovski, On inference of quantization from gravitationally induced entanglement, AVS Quantum Sci. 4, 045601 (2022).
  3. J. Oppenheim, A postquantum theory of classical gravity?, Phys. Rev. X 13, 041040 (2023).
  4. S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroš, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M.  S. Kim, and G. Milburn, Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 240401 (2017).
  5. U. Delić, M. Reisenbauer, K. Dare, D. Grass, V. Vuletić, N. Kiesel, and M. Aspelmeyer, Cooling of a levitated nanoparticle to the motional quantum ground state, Science 367, 892 (2020).
  6. T. Westphal, H. Hepach, J. Pfaff, and M. Aspelmeyer, Measurement of gravitational coupling between millimeter-sized masses, Nature (London) 591, 225 (2021).
  7. Y. Margalit, O. Dobkowski, Z. Zhou, O. Amit, Y. Japha, S. Moukouri et al., Realization of a complete stern-gerlach interferometer: Towards a test of quantum gravity, Sci. Adv. 7, eabg2879 (2021).
  8. M. Aspelmeyer, How to avoid the appearance of a classical world in gravity experiments, Fundam. Theor. Phys. 204, 85 (2022).
  9. C. D. Panda, M. J. Tao, J. Ceja, J. Khoury, G. M. Tino, and H. Müller, Measuring gravitational attraction with a lattice atom interferometer, Nature (London) 631, 515 (2024).
  10. S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, R. Penrose, I. Fuentes, M. Toroš, R. Folman et al., A spin-based pathway to testing the quantum nature of gravity, arXiv:2509.01586.
  11. E. Chitambar, D. Leung, L. Mančinska, M. Ozols, and A. Winter, Everything you always wanted to know about LOCC (But Were Afraid to Ask), Commun. Math. Phys. 328, 303 (2014).
  12. C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Gravitationally induced entanglement between two massive particles is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 240402 (2017).
  13. R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. Horodecki, Quantum entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 865 (2009).
  14. T. D. Galley, F. Giacomini, and J. H. Selby, A no-go theorem on the nature of the gravitational field beyond quantum theory, Quantum 6, 779 (2022).
  15. S. L. Ludescher, L. D. Loveridge, T. D. Galley, and M. P. Müller, Gravity-mediated entanglement via infinite-dimensional systems, J. Phys. A 59, 215302 (2026).
  16. M. Christodoulou, A. Di Biagio, M. Aspelmeyer, Č. Brukner, C. Rovelli, and R. Howl, Locally mediated entanglement in linearized quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 130, 100202 (2023).
  17. N. Huggett, N. Linnemann, and M. Schneider, Quantum gravity in a laboratory?, arXiv:2205.09013.
  18. A. Di Biagio, The simple reason why classical gravity can entangle, arXiv:2511.02683.
  19. S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroš, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M.  S. Kim, and G. Milburn, Supplementary material for A spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 240401 (2017).
  20. J. Aziz and R. Howl, Classical theories of gravity produce entanglement, Nature (London) 646, 813 (2025).
  21. W. Donnelly and S. B. Giddings, Diffeomorphism-invariant observables and their nonlocal algebra, Phys. Rev. D 93, 024030 (2016).
  22. W. Donnelly and S. B. Giddings, Observables, gravitational dressing, and obstructions to locality and subsystems, Phys. Rev. D 94, 104038 (2016).
  23. G. Franzmann, To be or not to be, but where?, arXiv:2405.21031.
  24. E. Colafranceschi, A. Di Biagio, J. Flinckman, G. Franzmann, J. Glowacki, N. Linnemann et al. (EmerGe Collaboration), Subsystems independence: From classical mechanics to quantum field theory and beyond (to be published).
  25. S. J. Summers, On the independence of local algebras in quantum field theory, Rev. Math. Phys. 02, 201 (1990).
  26. S. J. Summers, Subsystems and independence in relativistic microscopic physics, Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. B 40, 133 (2009).
  27. M. Christodoulou and C. Rovelli, On the possibility of laboratory evidence for quantum superposition of geometries, Phys. Lett. B 792, 64 (2019).
  28. P. Zanardi, D. A. Lidar, and S. Lloyd, Quantum tensor product structures are observable induced, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 060402 (2004).
  29. J. S. Cotler, G. R. Penington, and D. H. Ranard, Locality from the spectrum, Commun. Math. Phys. 368, 1267 (2019).
  30. S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, M. Schut, and M. Toroš, Mechanism for the quantum natured gravitons to entangle masses, Phys. Rev. D 105, 106028 (2022).
  31. M. Redei and S. J. Summers, Quantum probability theory, arXiv:quant-ph/0601158.
  32. A. S. Wightman, On the localizability of quantum mechanical systems, Rev. Mod. Phys. 34, 845 (1962).
  33. P. Busch, Unsharp localization and causality in relativistic quantum theory, J. Phys. A 32, 6535 (1999).
  34. M. Rédei and S. J. Summers, When are quantum systems operationally independent?, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 49, 3250 (2009).
  35. R. V. Kadison and J. R. Ringrose, Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras, Volume II: Advanced Theory, Pure and Applied Mathematics Vol. 100II (Academic Press, Orlando, FL, 1986).
  36. S. Doplicher and R. Longo, Standard and split inclusions of von Neumann algebras, Inventiones Mathematicae 75, 493 (1984).
  37. C. D’Antoni and R. Longo, Interpolation by type I factors and the flip automorphism, J. Funct. Anal. 51, 361 (1983).
  38. T. W. B. Kibble, Coherent soft-photon states and infrared divergences. I. Classical currents, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 9, 315 (1968).
  39. P. P. Kulish and L. D. Faddeev, Asymptotic conditions and infrared divergences in quantum electrodynamics, Theor. Math. Phys. 4, 745 (1970).
  40. W. Donnelly and L. Freidel, Local subsystems in gauge theory and gravity, J. High Energy Phys. 09 (2016) 102.
  41. S. B. Giddings, Gravitational dressing, soft charges, and perturbative gravitational splitting, Phys. Rev. D 100, 126001 (2019).
  42. S. B. Giddings, D. Marolf, and J. B. Hartle, Observables in effective gravity, Phys. Rev. D 74, 064018 (2006).
  43. E. Bagan, M. Lavelle, and D. McMullan, Charges from dressed matter: Construction, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 282, 471 (2000).
  44. P. A. Hoehn and J. Kirklin, Fighting non-locality with non-locality: Microcausality and boundary conditions in QED, arXiv:2512.16898.
  45. C. G. Torre, Gravitational observables and local symmetries, Phys. Rev. D 48, R2373 (1993).
  46. D. Marolf, Comments on microcausality, chaos, and gravitational observables, Classical Quantum Gravity 32, 245003 (2015).
  47. S. B. Giddings, Quantum gravity: A quantum-first approach, Lett. High Energy Phys. 1, 1 (2018).
  48. J. de Boer et al., Frontiers of quantum gravity: Shared challenges, converging directions, arXiv:2207.10618.
  49. E. Colafranceschi, A. Di Biagio, J. Flinckman, G. Franzmann, J. Glowacki, N. Linnemann et al. (EmerGe Collaboration), Microcausality and low-energy quantum gravity (to be published).
  50. B. M. Terhal, Bell inequalities and the separability criterion, Phys. Lett. A 271, 319 (2000).
  51. B. S. Cirel’son, Quantum generalizations of Bell’s inequality, Lett. Math. Phys. 4, 93 (1980).
  52. J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Phys. Phys. Fiz. 1, 195 (1964).
  53. J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969).
  54. A. Aspect, Proposed experiment to test the nonseparability of quantum mechanics, Phys. Rev. D 14, 1944 (1976).
  55. A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Experimental test of bell’s inequalities using time-varying analyzers, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982).
  56. G. Chiribella, G. M. D’Ariano, P. Perinotti, and B. Valiron, Quantum computations without definite causal structure, Phys. Rev. A 88, 022318 (2013).
  57. O. Oreshkov, F. Costa, and C. Brukner, Quantum correlations with no causal order, Nat. Commun. 3 (2012).
  58. V. Husain and D. R. Terno, Dynamics and entanglement in spherically symmetric quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 81, 044039 (2010).
  59. L. Lami, J. S. Pedernales, and M. B. Plenio, Testing the quantumness of gravity without entanglement, Phys. Rev. X 14, 021022 (2024).
  60. L. Q. Chen and F. Giacomini, Quantum effects in gravity beyond the newton potential from a delocalised quantum source, Phys. Rev. X 15, 031063 (2025).
  61. S. Raju, Failure of the split property in gravity and the information paradox, Classical Quantum Gravity 39, 064002 (2022).
  62. E. Witten, Gravity and the crossed product, J. High Energy Phys. 10 (2022) 008.
  63. V. Chandrasekaran, R. Longo, G. Penington, and E. Witten, An algebra of observables for de sitter space, J. High Energy Phys. 02 (2023) 082.
  64. https://emerge-collab.org/
  65. D. Buchholz and S. J. Summers, Quantum statistics and locality, Phys. Lett. A 337, 17 (2005).
  66. D. Malament, In defense of dogma: Why there cannot be a relativistic quantum mechanical theory of (localizable) particles, in Perspectives on Quantum Reality, edited by R. Clifton (Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1996), p. 35.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 114, 025015– Published 21 July, 2026
  • Received 26 March 2026
  • Accepted 22 June 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article’s title, journal citation, and DOI. Funded by Bibsam.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation