MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226190095 · doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ad6d26

Quantum generalisation of Einstein’s equivalence principle can be verified with entangled clocks as quantum reference frames

2024· article· en· W4226190095 on OpenAlexafffund
Carlo Cepollaro, Flaminia Giacomini

Bibliographic record

VenueClassical and Quantum Gravity · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRelativity and Gravitational Theory
Canadian institutionsPerimeter Institute
FundersNational Center of Competence in Research Quantum Science and TechnologyInstitut Périmètre de physique théorique
KeywordsReference framePhysicsImpossibilityQuantum entanglementInertial frame of referenceEinsteinQuantumClassical mechanicsQuantum mechanicsEquivalence (formal languages)Theoretical physicsGeneral relativityQuantum stateStatistical physicsFrame (networking)MathematicsComputer sciencePure mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The Einstein equivalence principle (EEP) is of crucial importance to test the foundations of general relativity. When the particles involved in the test exhibit quantum properties, it is unknown whether this principle still holds. A violation of the EEP would have drastic consequences for physics. A more conservative possibility is that the EEP holds in a generalised form for delocalised quantum particles. Here we formulate such a generalised EEP by extending one of its paradigmatic tests with clocks to quantum clocks that are in a quantum superposition of positions and velocities. We show that the validity of such a generalised version of the EEP is equivalent to the possibility of transforming to the perspective of an arbitrary Quantum Reference Frame (QRF), namely a reference frame associated to the quantum state of the clock. We further show that this generalised EEP can be verified by measuring the proper time of entangled clocks in a quantum superposition of positions in the Earth gravitational field. The violation of the generalised EEP corresponds to the impossibility of defining dynamical evolution in the frame of each clock, and results in a modification to the probabilities of measurements calculated in the laboratory frame. Hence, it can be verified experimentally, for instance in an atom interferometer.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.045
Threshold uncertainty score0.826

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClassical and Quantum GravitySame topicRelativity and Gravitational TheoryFrench-language works237,207