Quantum superposition of spacetimes obeys Einstein's equivalence principle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We challenge the view that there is a basic conflict between the fundamental principles of Quantum Theory and General Relativity and, in particular, the fact that a superposition of massive bodies would lead to a violation of the Equivalence Principle. It has been argued that this violation implies that such a superposition must inevitably spontaneously collapse (like in the Diósi–Penrose model). We identify the origin of such an assertion in the impossibility of finding a local and classical reference frame in which Einstein's Equivalence Principle would hold. In contrast, we argue that the formulation of the Equivalence Principle can be generalized so that it holds for reference frames that are associated with quantum systems in a superposition of spacetimes. The core of this new formulation is the introduction of a quantum diffeomorphism to such Quantum Reference Frames. This procedure reconciles the principle of linear superposition in Quantum Theory with the principle of general covariance and the Equivalence Principle of General Relativity. Hence, it is not necessary to invoke a gravity-induced spontaneous state reduction when a massive body is prepared in a spatial superposition.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".