HEXAGONbeta

Entanglement from the Diósi–Penrose Model: An Exact Criterion, and Why It Stays Small at Any Distance

Primarily AI-generated textHuman understanding: all partsquant-ph — Quantum Physics

Contributed by Marc Sperzel ↗

Version 1 / Nov 12, 2026 / CC BY 4.0

Abstract

Trillo and Navascués showed that the Diósi–Penrose model, in the Tilloy–Diósi form with the same smearing length σ\sigma in force and noise, entangles two masses in superposition when they are closer than about 2.2 σ2.2\,\sigma, and asked whether gravitationally induced entanglement can be observed beyond that distance. We answer for two rigid bodies whose branches are position eigenstates on finite sets, without kinetic term, for noise strength CC. One kernel, the Coulomb energy of the smeared bodies, sets both the Newtonian coupling and the correlated noise, and the question becomes a single geometric comparison: a product state becomes entangled if and only if the largest canonical correlation between neutral charge patterns on the two branch sets exceeds C/1+C2C/\sqrt{1+C^2}. Below this threshold the evolution is a separable operation at all times. The published critical distances are two-branch cases of the criterion: for parallel two-branch superpositions the supremum is 2.21 σ2.21\,\sigma at C=1C=1, and a straddling geometry reaches 2.74 σ2.74\,\sigma. With many branches there is no critical distance. What limits the effect is the model's own dephasing, which sits in the same quadratic form. For bodies of effective size σeff\sigma_{\rm eff} (σ\sigma for point masses) separated by a slab of width d≫σd\gg\sigma, the entangling rate at C=1C=1 is at most 0.12 σeff/d0.12\,\sigma_{\rm eff}/d times the single-body dephasing rate. The entanglement is therefore transient and, for well-separated branches, a fraction of order σeff/d\sigma_{\rm eff}/d of what unitary Newtonian gravity gives. Entanglement of the size unitary gravity predicts still excludes the model; the inference from any detected entanglement beyond a fixed multiple of σ\sigma does not hold.

Author comments: Revised presentation: the idea is stated first, a contents page is added, and the numerical values are collected in an appendix. Results and title are unchanged.

Provenance statement

The calculations and the text were produced by AI systems (Claude, Anthropic) directed by the author. The central criterion was obtained twice by independent computations that could not see each other, then checked by two further independent review passes that re-derived the theorem and reproduced the numbers; the statements were narrowed where a review required it. Statements that are numerical or computer-assisted are identified as such in the text. The author has read and checked the whole paper.

References

  1. 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). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.240401 (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.240401)DOI
  2. 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). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.240402 (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.240402)DOI
  3. L. Diósi, A universal master equation for the gravitational violation of quantum mechanics , Phys.\ Lett.\ A 120 , 377 (1987). doi:10.1016/0375-9601(87)90681-5 (https://doi.org/10.1016/0375-9601(87)90681-5)DOI
  4. L. Diósi, Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations , Phys.\ Rev.\ A 40 , 1165 (1989). doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.40.1165 (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.40.1165)DOI
  5. R. Penrose, On gravity's role in quantum state reduction , Gen.\ Relat.\ Gravit.\ 28 , 581 (1996). doi:10.1007/BF02105068 (https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02105068)DOI
  6. A. Tilloy and L. Diósi, Sourcing semiclassical gravity from spontaneously localized quantum matter , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 93 , 024026 (2016). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024026 (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024026)DOI
  7. A. Tilloy and L. Diósi, Principle of least decoherence for Newtonian semiclassical gravity , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 96 , 104045 (2017). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.104045 (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.96.104045)DOI
  8. D. Kafri, J. M. Taylor, and G. J. Milburn, A classical channel model for gravitational decoherence , New J.\ Phys.\ 16 , 065020 (2014). doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065020 (https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065020)DOI
  9. D. Trillo and M. Navascués, The Diósi--Penrose model of classical gravity predicts gravitationally induced entanglement , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 111 , L121101 (2025). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.L121101 (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111.L121101)DOI
  10. O. Angeli and M. Carlesso, Entanglement in Markovian hybrid classical-quantum theories of gravity , Phys.\ Rev.\ D 112 , 024047 (2025). doi:10.1103/jzht-fbwt (https://doi.org/10.1103/jzht-fbwt)DOI
Show all 17 referencesShow fewer references
  1. A. Di Biagio, Gravity-induced entanglement is not a theory-independent witness of nonclassicality of the gravitational field , arXiv:2511.02683 (2025). arXiv:2511.02683 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.02683)arXiv
  2. Y.-X. Wang, J. S. Pedernales, and M. B. Plenio, Recoverability of Gravitational Entanglement under Decoherence , arXiv:2611.05044 (2026). arXiv:2611.05044 (https://arxiv.org/abs/2611.05044)arXiv
  3. H. Hotelling, Relations Between Two Sets of Variates , Biometrika 28 , 321 (1936). doi:10.1093/biomet/28.3-4.321 (https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/28.3-4.321)DOI
  4. A. Peres, Separability Criterion for Density Matrices , Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 77 , 1413 (1996). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1413 (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.77.1413)DOI
  5. R. A. Horn and C. R. Johnson, Matrix Analysis , 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2013). ISBN 9780521839402.
  6. E. R. Love, The Electrostatic Field of Two Equal Circular Co-axial Conducting Disks , Q.\ J.\ Mech.\ Appl.\ Math.\ 2 , 428 (1949). doi:10.1093/qjmam/2.4.428 (https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmam/2.4.428)DOI
  7. J. G. Lee, E. G. Adelberger, T. S. Cook, S. M. Fleischer, and B. R. Heckel, New Test of the Gravitational 1/r21/r^2 Law at Separations down to 52 μ\mum , Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ 124 , 101101 (2020). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.101101 (https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.124.101101)DOI

Version history

  1. v1 · 19 pagesSubmitted by Marc SperzelRevised presentation: the idea is stated first, a contents page is added, and the numerical values are collected in an appendix. Results and title are unchanged.CurrentNov 12, 2026