arXiv:2109.02608v2 [quant-ph] 7 Sep 2021 rdcsta h ofiuaino atradeeg can QT energy hand, and in one of be the a configuration On provide the that cannot physics. predicts GR of and description QT for complete However, confirmation century. experimental a both over enoumous are They by physics. supported of theories fundamental most our clsdet ffcso rvt eg,[7–13]). (e.g., gravity of macroscopic effects sufficiently QT to at of validity due predictions of scales limit the Impor- a that reach suggested too. could been scales has it macroscopic tantly, mod- sufficiently these requires in QT in least, that conceivable ification at is modified, it be Moreover, Thus, to scales. needs [1–6]). GR (e.g., experimen- that scales follows been it microscopic has in superpositions confirmed quantum tally systems in massive that be QT can of prediction space- The and perpositions. energy matter, purely treat as time GR of equations stein’s hs thsbe rpsdta h rvttoa field gravitational the that 29]. proposed [28, been problems has grav- important it the several Thus, quantizing has Moreover, field itational [24–27]). been (e.g., have arguments refuted these However, quan- argu- be [20–23]). are must (e.g., field tized there gravitational Furthermore, the that claiming [16–19]). ments in- gravity others quantum In been and loop have [14], [15], gravity too. theory string quantum scales (e.g., of vestigated these experi- theories in been several properties has fact, quantum QT some must because spacetime have scales, that microscopic properties? in argued confirmed quantum mentally be some have could it It does or classical, tally ∗ [email protected] unu hoy(T n eea eaiiy(R are (GR) relativity general and (QT) theory Quantum hsmtvtstequestion, the motivates This unu superpositions quantum rvttoa ae,adortermde o eyo h con the on rely not does doe theorem experiment principle. our uncertainty thought quantizi and our waves, of phy assumptions, necessity gravitational our real the of a for validity argument the is in Eppley-Hannah measurement theory the quantum upon distant quantum to on reduction and acting when relativity state superluminally general quantum “classica of inequalitie called the properties Bell if be violate few to q freedom a spacetime of of if degrees for features spacetime condition striking f that most sensible of degrees the a spacetime by of is quantu inequalities one any Bell of is have satisfaction inequalities fundamentally gravit Bell must of of spacetime quantization the whether requires about relativity general and 1 etefrQatmIfrainadFudtos AT,Cen DAMTP, Foundations, and Information Quantum for Centre lhuhtesadr iwon ntertclpyisi t is physics theoretical in viewpoint standard the Although classical .INTRODUCTION I. hc antb nqatmsu- quantum in be cannot which , nvriyo abig,WlefreRa,Cmrde CB3 Cambridge, Road, Wilberforce Cambridge, of University nteohrhn,Ein- hand, other the On . ssaeiefundamen- spacetime is ssaeiequantum? spacetime Is aia Pital´ua-Garc´ıaDami´an Dtd etme ,2021) 8, September (Dated: aro hsclssesa pclk eaaincno be cannot a separation spacelike on at performed systems physical experiments of in pair inequalities Bell of lation any correlations. simulate entangled communi- straightforwardly quantum parties can two the- subluminally example, variable For cating hidden [42]. local (LHVTs) timelike via ories with in intuitions modelled be classical arising principle purely systems in quantum can experiments correlations of separated entangled pair quantum the a and However, between [40] cryptography [41]. superdense computation quantum [38], [39], teleportation quantum coding science, in information example, fun- quantum various for has in It applications physics. classical damental in arise not does that too. would this non-classical us, is taught spacetime has that GR is imply as field spacetime, gravitational of the property that non- a Assuming is 37]. field [36, gravitational classical en- the could mediate that can that implying field and tanglement, gravitational future the near claim that the they demonstrate in that implemented experiment be beautiful could a proposed they cently that or inequalities. systems, Bell other any they violate with that cannot or entangled superpositions, be quantum that cannot in be: be could cannot classical as they of spacetime degrees consider spacetime to on freedom impose to exam- conditions For natural classical. ple, fundamentally is spacetime whether remains gravity of this experi- features missing. quantum Ultimately, But for experimentally. evidence answered mental properties. be quantum must spacetime, question hence any and have field, must gravitational present 30–35]). the at whether consensus 27, not of is [26, there reasons, (e.g., previous classical the For fundamentally be could oee,a olw rmBl’ hoe 4] h vio- the [42], theorem Bell’s from follows as However, phenomenon paramount a is entanglement Quantum re- have [37] Vedral and Marletto and [36], al. et Bose evaluate to considered be could criteria Different edmi pclk eaae experiment separated spacelike a in reedom n pctm,teei o consensus not is there spacetime, and y nabcgon ikwk spacetime Minkowski background a in s unu nage tt.I contrast In state. entangled quantum a ” eew hwatermstating theorem a show we Here l”. 1, a h nfiaino unu theory quantum of unification the hat o eur omnplt rdetect or manipulate to require not s gtegaiainlfil,w discuss we field, gravitational the ng atmter,w sueta the that assume we theory, uantum aeabodrneo aiiy and validity, of range broad a have ∗ evto fmmnu ro the on or momentum of servation etrs ic h violation the Since features. m ia rcs hti completed is that process sical r o ahmtclSciences, Mathematical for tre W,U.K. 0WA, 2 described by LHVTs, defying all classical intuitions. QT U. Since a quantum measurement comprises an interac- predicts the violation of Bell inequalities by some entan- tion between the measurement apparatus and the mea- gled states: every pure entangled quantum state violates sured system, we would expect that QSR and U should a Bell inequality [43, 44], but not every mixed entangled have the same fundamental description. quantum state does [45]. Different approaches towards the quantum measure- The Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality ment problem have been proposed. An important view- [46] is one of the simplest and most popular Bell inequal- point is that QSR is merely a Bayesian updating of a ities. It involves Alice randomly choosing and applying probability distribution on acquiring new information one of two measurements labelled by α 0, 1 on a sys- (e.g., [65–69]). Nevertheless, the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph tem A at spacelike separation from Bob∈{ randomly} choos- theorem [70] (see also Refs. [71–74]) tells us that, given ing and applying one of two measurements labelled by some arguably sensible assumptions, the quantum state β 0, 1 . Alice’s and Bob’s respective outcomes a and is a real physical state, suggesting that QSR is a real b have∈{ two} posible values a,b 0, 1 . The CHSH in- physical process. ∈ { } equality is given by The “many worlds” interpretations of QT [75, 76] claim that only U takes place fundamentally, and that ICHSH 2, (1) the different possible outcomes in a quantum measure- | |≤ ment coexist in reality. However, these interpretations where ICHSH E(0, 0)+ E(0, 1) E(1, 0)+ E(1, 1), and cannot effectively explain the observed probabilities in ≡ − where E(α, β) = P (a = b α, β) P (a = b α, β) denotes agreement with the Born rule in quantum measurements, | − 6 | the expectation value when Alice and Bob choose the and they cannot be verified or refuted in experiment ei- measurements labelled by α and β, for all a,b,α,β ther [77]. ∈ 0, 1 . The CHSH inequality is maximally violated by a In our view, promising approaches to solve the quan- { } pair of qubits in a maximally entangled state, for example tum measurement problem are collapse models, propos- in the singlet state ing that QSR is a real physical process whose explana- tion requires to extend the Schr¨odinger equation (e.g., 1 Ψ− = 0 1 1 0 , (2) [12, 78–88]). Crucially, we note that there are collapse | i √2 | i| i − | i| i  models suggesting that gravity mediates QSR (e.g., [7– 12]). achieving the quantum Tsirelson bound [47]: Assuming that QSR is a real physical process, Eppley and Hannah claimed in an influential paper [21] that the ICHSH 2√2. (3) gravitational field must be quantized. Their argument is | |≤ that 1) if a gravitational wave of arbitrarily small mo- Before 2015, the violation of Bell inequalities had been mentum can be used to reduce the quantum state of a confirmed in various experiments (e.g. [48–57]), but sub- quantum to measure its position then either mo- ject to at least one of three important loopholes: the mentum is not conserved or the uncertainty principle is locality loophole [42], the freedom-of-choice loophole [42] violated; and 2) if the gravitational wave does not reduce and the detection loophole [58]. Three outstanding ex- the quantum state of the particle then a superluminal sig- periments [59–61] published in 2015 demonstrated the vi- nal can be transmitted by having the wave interact with olation of Bell inequalities closing these loopholes simul- a particle that is entangled with another distant parti- taneously. However, despite being addressed in an ex- cle. This argument has been refuted on different grounds periment [62], the collapse-locality loophole [63] remains (e.g., [24–26, 32, 89]). Ref. [24] shows that the device open [64]. Thus, the results in previous Bell experiments proposed by Eppley and Hannah to measure the posi- could in principle be described by LHVTs. tion of a particle with a gravitational wave cannot be In this paper we assume that the loophole-free satisfac- built even in principle. Refs. [25, 26] assert that even tion of Bell inequalities by spacetime degrees of freedom if QSR is a real physical process, it does not need to al- in spacelike separated experiments is a necessary condi- low superluminal signalling. Refs. [32, 89] argue that tion for spacetime to be sensibly called “classical”. As we strict conservation of momentum does not need to hold will show, under some assumptions, spacetime degrees of fundamentally. freedom can violate the CHSH inequality, implying that Broadly speaking, this paper presents a theorem stat- spacetime has quantum features. ing that if the predictions of GR are valid for dis- Another fundamental problem of QT is the quantum tributions in classical states at sufficiently small scales, measurement problem. As presently understood, there the predictions of QT are universally valid, and QSR is a are two general types of quantum evolution: the contin- real physical process, then there are spacetime degrees of uous unitary evolution (U) of a closed system described freedom violating a Bell inequality. Thus, given our as- by the Schr¨odinger equation, and the apparently discon- sumptions, spacetime must have some quantum features. tinuous quantum state reduction (QSR) upon a quantum Assuming that QT has universal validity is very strong, measurement. In a way, the quantum measurement prob- as it has only been experimentally tested in microscopic lem is to understand the interrelation between QSR and scales, and it is conceivable that its predictions will fail in 3 experiments in sufficiently macroscopic scales. Similarly, This implies that the outcome probabilities of any ex- it could be the case that GR is not valid in all situations, periment cannot depend on spacelike separated events, even for mass distributions in classical states. However, i.e. no-superluminal signalling; or on events in the causal our theorem only requires to assume a few properties future, i.e. no-. QT is consistent with this about QSR, GR and QT, specific to a thought experiment assumption. In particular, as mentioned above, the no- on which our argument is based. In particular, we only signalling principle of QT says that measuring distant need to assume a couple of rather weak properties about quantum systems on entangled states does not allow us GR. Moreover, we do not need to assume that QT is valid to transmit any signals. in all scales. In contrast to the Eppley-Hannah argument [21], we Assumption 2 (No-superdeterminism). It is possible to give our assumptions explicitly and we discuss their va- choose free variables, i.e. variables with probability dis- lidity. Crucially, our thought experiment does not require tributions that are independent of any events outside their to manipulate or detect gravitational waves. Further- causal past. more, our theorem does not rely on the conservation of momentum or on the uncertainty principle. Without this assumption, the events of every experi- ment could be predetermined. This would not contra- dict assumption 1 because in principle there could be a II. OUR ASSUMPTIONS AND THEOREM common cause for every experiment, the big bang, for example. In this section, we present our result, Theorem 1, stat- Local causality, i.e., the assumption that all physical ing that spacetime degrees of freedom do not satisfy local systems satisfy local causality according to definition 1, causality, under some assumptions. Thus, if our assump- requires assumptions 1 and 2 for justification. In partic- tions are true then spacetime cannot be classical. We ular, if retrocausality or superdeterminism held, then (4) define local causality, and state and discuss our assump- could not be satisfied. In the former case, the probabil- tions below. ity distribution for b (a) could depend on α (β) because the variable α (β) can be sent to the causal future of RB (RA). In the latter case, there would not exist truly A. Local causality and assumptions in Bell’s free variables, implying in particular that α (β) would be theorem predetermined and thus that the probability distribution for b (a) could depend on α (β). Definition 1 (Local causality). A physical system A sat- As discussed, various Bell experiments have been per- isfies local causality if in any Bell experiment involving formed (e.g., [48–57]), confirming the predictions of QT any other physical systems B, C, etc., the outcome prob- and ruling out local causality, modulo some loopholes abilities can be described by a local hidden variable the- (e.g., [42, 58]). Recent experiments [59–61] have simul- ory. This must hold in particular in the following Bell taneously closed various important loopholes. However, experiment. Consider a ‘Bell experiment’ involving two the collapse-locality loophole [63] remains open [64]. spacelike separated regions RA and RB, in which a free In addition to closing all loopholes, a complete experi- variable α (β) is chosen at RA (RB) and then a mea- mental exclusion of local causality requires the following surement using the input α (β) is applied on a physical assumption. system A (B) obtaining an outcome a (b) at R (R ). A B Assumption 3 . If A (B) satisfies local causality, then there exist ‘hidden (Background Minkowski spacetime) variables’ λ Λ originating in the intersection of the The background spacetime near the Earth surface and ∈ in the interplanetary space in our solar system is causal pasts of RA and RB with probability distribution Minkowski. Furthermore, any Bell experiment in the P (λ) λ∈Λ such that the outcome probabilities are given {by } interplanetary space involving quantum systems cannot substantially modified the spacetime geometry. In partic- ular, there cannot be wormholes, closed timelike curves, P (ab αβ)= dλP (λ)P (a αλ)P (b βλ), (4) | Zλ∈Λ | | or any other mechanisms allowing signalling between spacelike separated regions. for all a,b,α,β. Making this assumption explicitly might seem exces- Bell’s theorem [42] says that QT is inconsistent with sive. But it is needed to discard the speculations that the assumption of local causality. This is one of the most quantum systems in entangled states are connected via striking quantum features. wormholes [91] or via other signalling mechanisms (e.g., The following assumptions are standard in Bell’s and [92]). We note that distant entangled particles other theorems in quantum foundations (e.g., [70, 90]). allowing superluminal signalling via wormholes would Assumption 1 (Relativistic causality). The outcome not necessarily contradict relativistic causality (assump- probabilities of any experiment only depend on events in tion 1) because wormholes are possible solutions of Ein- the causal past of the experiment. stein’s equations. 4

In principle, a rigorous experimental test of local suggests that QSR is a real physical process. This, to- causality in the interplanetary space does not need the gether with the observed violation of Bell inequalities background spacetime there to be Minkowski, if worm- (e.g., [59–61]), further suggests that assumption 4 is plau- holes or other superluminal signalling mechanisms are sible. excluded. But, in practice, the experimenters must However, we clarify that there is not consensus about have a sufficiently good description of the spacetime ge- the validity of assumption 4. In particular, this assump- ometry involved. For this reason, it is a requirement tion was implicitly made by Eppley and Hannah [21] in that the background spacetime be Minkowski. Fur- their argument for the necessity of quantizing the gravita- thermore, imposing this condition on the interplanetary tional field. Kent [26] criticised this assumption, suggest- space, at least in an experiment between a laboratory ing that QSR is not superluminal [63]. His criticism is on Earth and a space-based laboratory separated by ap- based on the logical possibility that a version of standard proximately 0.1 light seconds, might be needed to close QT, with localized QSR obeying the Born rule, can be the collapse-locality loophole with quantum systems [63]. combined with a theory of gravity that interacts with the The thought experiment used in the proof of our theorem local quantum state. Kent supports this criticism with might require to be implemented even at larger scales the collapse-locality loophole [63], stating that the quan- in the interplanetary space, or beyond. In the latter tum measurements in previous Bell experiments could case, assumption 3 must be extended so that the back- have been timelike separated because QSR could take ground spacetime where the experiment takes place be longer than what assumed in the experiments, and in his Minkowski. proposed causal quantum theory [63, 93] stating that the violation of Bell inequalities will not be observed in ex- periments that close this loophole. A Bell experiment [62] B. Assumptions on quantum state reduction has addressed the collapse-locality loophole and claimed to have closed it, under a specific hypothesis for QSR by Assumption 4 (Superluminal Quantum State Reduc- Penrose [10] and Diosi [8]. However, according to Kent, tion). The quantum state reduction in a quantum mea- this loophole is still open, and stronger tests have been surement is a physical process taking a finite time. Fur- recently proposed by him to close it in future Bell exper- thermore, in a known reference frame Fred in a back- iments [64]. ground Minkwoski spacetime, there exists a sufficiently large distance Dred such that if a pair of quantum sys- tems A and B is prepared in the singlet state and can be C. Assumptions on spacetime and quantum theory kept in this state while they are sent to distant locations separated by a distance D>D , then upon measuring red Assumption 5 A the reduction of the local quantum states of A and B (Perfect Distinguishability of Classi- Dred D cal Spacetime Geometries). In a background Minkowski is completed in a time Tred = c < c , where c is the speed of light through vacuum. spacetime, the location x of a system of mass m as a function of time t can be set in two different well de- Assumption 4 is a debatable assumption that seems fined classical worldlines x0(t) and x1(t), represented by to contradict our intuitions about relativistic causality. classical states x0(t) and x1(t) generating respective | i | i This is because according to relativity theory, there is an well defined classical states G0 and G1 for spacetime | i | i inertial reference frame connected to Fred by a Lorentz geometries in a spacetime region Rgeom. A ‘spacetime transformation in which the quantum state reduction of measurement’ experiment can be implemented in SM system B takes place before the quantum measurement Rgeom to perfectly distinguish whether the spacetime ge- is implemented on system A. However, this assumption ometry there is in the state G0 or G1 . If assumption | i | i is not inconsistent with relativistic causality because, ac- 4 holds, then the spacetime region Rgeom has a time in- cording to QT, QSR does not allow us to send any su- terval Tgeom > 0 in the reference frame Fred. perluminal signals. More precisely, QT satisfies the no- signalling principle stating that the outcome probabilities This assumption is consistent with the predictions of of any quantum measurement on B are independent of GR. A massive system with well defined classical position the quantum measurement applied on A, and vice versa. xi(t) as a function of time generates a well defined classi- Moreover, it would not be inconsistent with special rel- cal state Gi for the spacetime geometry in the spacetime | i ativity that there existed a preferred reference frame in region comprising the causal future of xi(t), according to nature with respect to which QSR propagated instan- Einstein’s equations. However, Heisenberg’s [94] uncer- taneously. Furthermore, as discussed in the introduc- tainty principle of QT states that no physical system can tion, GR does not say anything about quantum super- simultaneously have perfectly well defined position and positions or about quantum entanglement, as it assumes momentum at any given time. But if the system’s mass that matter-energy is in well-defined classical values. The m is large enough then the uncertainties ∆x and ∆v for truth is that we do not understand QSR at present. Fur- its potion and velocity can be negligible, while satisfy- thermore, the celebrated Pusey-Barret-Rudolph theorem ing m∆v∆x ' h, according to the uncertainty principle, [70] suggests that the quantum state is real, which also where h is Planck’s constant. 5

Furthermore, in this case, if the world lines x0(t) and are transformations consistent with QT that could SM x1(t) are chosen appropriately, then the states G0 and induce that are not considered in assumption 7. | i G1 can in principle be distinguished in an experiment. Importantly, we have neglected the possibility that | i For example, a source system of mass mS = m may be set comprises only unitary evolution of all physical sys- SM in one of two free falling trajectories x0(t) and x1(t) sepa- tems involved. This could be consistent with the “many rated by a distance d during a time Tgeom, and the states worlds” interpretation of QT. But this would contradict G0 and G1 could be distinguished by measuring the our assumptions here that QSR is a real physical process. | i | i final position of a probe system with mass mP free falling Moreover, if only implements a unitary evolution, simultaneously with the source system and separated by then it followsSM that some spacetime degrees of freedom ′ some distance d from both possible trajectories x0(t) become entangled with other systems, implying also that and x1(t) of the source system, with appropriately cho- spacetime is non-classical, according to a natural crite- ′ sen values of mS,mP, d, d and Tgeom. This experiment rion for non-classicality. can be described classically in the Newtonian limit of Nevertheless, there are other transformations consis- GR within very good approximation, if the uncertainties tent with QT that could be induced by . For exam- SM ∆xP (∆xS) and ∆vP (∆vS) for the position and veloc- ple, could apply a unitary operation, changing the SM ′ ′ 2 2 ity of the massive probe (source) system are guaranteed amplitude Ci to C , with C = Ci , and then reduce i | i| 6 | | to be small enough during the experiment. In particu- the quantum state to xi(t) and output s = i with prob- ′ 2 | i lar, we may choose parameters consistent with the un- ability Ci , for all i 0, 1 . We do not aim here to certainty principle for the source and probe systems, sat- consider| all| possible transformations∈ { } consistent with QT 2 ′2 ′ isfying mA∆xA << GmSmPTgeom/d < mAd < mAd that can implement. We focus on the two possibil- 2 ′2 SM and mA∆vATgeom << GmSmPTgeom/d , for “A” = ities stated in assumption 7, which appear to us as the “P”, “S”, where G is the gravitational constant. This ex- simplest and most natural to explore. periment can in principle be implemented in space with a Our assumption that a measurement of spacetime de- low background gravitational field so that the source and grees of freedom may induce a reduction of the quan- probe can free fall for as long as it is required. tum state is motivated by the hypothesis that gravity, and hence spacetime, plays a fundamental role in QSR Assumption 6 (Macroscopic Quantum Superpositions). [7, 9, 10, 95] The location of a physical system of mass m as a func- In addition to assumption 6, the following two assump- tion of time can be set in an arbitrary quantum super- tions only concern the limits of validity of QT. position Ψ(t) = C0 x0(t) + C1 x1(t) of the classical | i | i | i worldlines x0(t) and x1(t) satisfying assumption 5. Fur- Assumption 8 (Experimentally Verified Quantum The- thermore, this quantum superposition can be sustained ory). Quantum theory is valid in the microscopic scales during a time interval Tmass > Tgeom in the reference and in the situations in which it has been experimentally frame Fred if assumption 4 holds. verified. A crucial observation is that the parameters m and This assumption seems trivially obvious. But we state Tgeom of assumption 5 might need to be large enough in it explicitly in order to emphasize that assumption 6 and order to be able to distinguish the classical states G0 the following assumption, which have not been confirmed | i and G1 in an experiment that it might not be possible to in experiment, might not hold. prepare| i and maintain a system of mass m in an arbitrary Assumption 9 (Long Range Quantum Entanglement). quantum superposition Ψ(t) = C0 x0(t) + C1 x1(t) | i | i | i In a background Minkowski spacetime, two quantum sys- during a time interval Tmass >Tgeom. This could be due to some fundamental decoherence effects, for example, tems A and B prepared in the singlet state can be kept in due to gravitational effects [13]. Thus, it is conceivable this state while they are sent to distant locations separated that assumption 6 does not hold, establishing a limit of by a sufficiently large distance Dent such that if assump- QT. tions 4 and 5 hold then Dent >c Tred+Tgeom+Textra , in the reference frame Fred, for some sufficiently long time Assumption 7 (Spacetime Quantum State Reduction). interval Textra > 0. If assumption 4, 5 and 6 hold, then the spacetime mea- surement either i) does not change the quantum Recently, quantum entangled photons have been dis- SM tributed between two cities in China separated by 1,200 state Ψ(t) ; or ii) reduces it to xi(t) and outputs s = i | i 2 | i km via the Micius satellite [96]. However, satisfying as- with probability Ci , within a time interval Tgeom in the | | sumption 9 might require entanglement distribution be- reference frame Fred, for all i 0, 1 . ∈{ } tween interplanetary distances, or beyond. According Certainly, could modify the quantum state Ψ(t) to QT, this is in principle possible. In particular, since in ways notSM considered by assumption 7. Transforma-| i the interplanetary space has much less atoms than the tions that lie outside our current understanding of QT Earth atmosphere, it is in principle easier for a photon are deliberately neglected, as one of our aims here is to travel a given distance in the interplanetary space than to investigate possible limits on QT that could arise if to travel that distance in the Earth atmosphere. Further- spacetime were fundamentally classical. However, there more, if distributing a pair of entangled photons through 6

′ a large distance Dent succeeds with a small probability for all α, α 0, 1 . Thus, Alice obtains outcome a with −1 ∈{1 } Pent > 0, by trying with N >> (Pent) pairs, at least probability 2 , as predicted by QT, for all a 0, 1 . This one pair of entangled photons will be distributed success- follows from assumption 8 because A is a∈{ microscopic} fully with high probability. Nevertheless, it is conceivable quantum system. From assumption 4, due to Alice’s that there is an unknown limit on QT stating that as- quantum measurement on A, the local quantum states sumption 9 cannot hold. As for assumption 6, this could of A and B have reduced, and Alice has obtained the be due to fundamental decoherence effects, for example, outcome a, by the time t2 = t1 + Tred > 0. From (8), the a due to gravity [13]. reduced quantum states of Alice and Bob are φαα′ and a¯ | i The following theorem shows that if assumptions 1 – 9 φ ′ , respectively. | αα i hold, then spacetime cannot be classical. Alternatively, Between times t0 and t2, Bob generates a random bit if spacetime is classical, at least one of our assumptions β. Then, at time t2 Bob receives the qubit B in the re- a¯ must be false. duced quantum state φ ′ , as discussed above. At time | αα i Theorem 1. If assumptions 1 – 9 hold then there are t2, immediately upon reception, Bob applies a unitary β 0 1 operation Umic on B, where Umic = is the identity op- spacetime degrees of freedom violating local causality. 1 eration and Umic = Umic is a unitary operation satisfying We prove the theorem by considering a thought exper- a a a iment, making assumptions 1 – 9. Umic φ10 = ( 1) φ00 , | a i −a | i Umic φ = φ , (9) | 00i | 10i III. A THOUGHT EXPERIMENT AND PROOF for all a 0, 1 . This is possible according to assump- OF THEOREM 1 tion 8, because∈ { B} is a microscopic quantum system. The label ‘mic’ stands for ‘microscopic’. β Alice and Bob perform the following experiment near After the unitary operation Umic is completed, Bob ap- ′ the Earth surface, or in the interplanetary space in our plies a unitary operation Umac on the joint system BB , solar system. Thus, from assumption 3, the experiment where B′ is a macroscopic massive system initially pre- takes place in a background Minkowski spacetime. Ac- pared by Bob in a classical position state xinit . The | i cording to assumption 4, the reference frame Fred is label ‘mac’ stands for ‘macroscopic’. Let mmic and mmac known. We can then assume that Alice and Bob know be the respective masses of the system B and B′, with this reference frame. We describe the experiment in this mmic << mmac and with the mass of the joint system ′ frame (see Fig. 1). BB be m = mmic + mmac. In the case that B is a ′ Let Trand,Trand,Tmic,Tmac > 0 be time intervals de- photon, we can simply set mmic = 0. Let Bob’s unitary fined below, and let operation Umac be completed at the time t3 = t2 + Tmic, ′ and satisfy Textra = Trand + Trand + Tmic + Tmac. (5)

Alice and Bob are separated by a distance Umac a xinit = xa(t3) , (10) | i| i | i

Dent >c(Tred + Tgeom + Textra). (6) where xa(t3) is a classical state for the location x of the | i ′ Alice and Bob receive microscopic quantum systems A joint system BB at the time t3, corresponding to the worldline xa(t) satisfying assumptions 5 and 6, for all a and B encoding qubits in the singlet state (2). This is ∈ 0, 1 . Thus, according to assumption 5, the state xa(t) possible according to assumption 9. { } | i generates a classical state Ga for spacetime geometry Between times t0 = 0 and t1 = Tran, Alice generates | i ′ in a spacetime region Rgeom, for all a 0, 1 . From two random bits α and α . Then, at time t1, she receives ∈ { } the qubit A and measures it immediately upon reception assumptions 4 and 5, Rgeom has a time interval Tgeom > ′ a 1 0 in the frame Fred. Let Rgeom have time coordinates in the qubit orthonormal basis αα = φαα′ a=0 and B {| i} t [t3,t4] in the frame Fred, where t4 = t3 + Tgeom. obtains the bit outcome a, where ∈ Between the times t3 and t5, the position of the system φa = a , ′ | 00i | i BB is set to evolve with the unitary operation Upos(t) 1 as a function of time t, which satisfies φa = 0 + ( 1)a 1 , | 10i √ | i − | i 2  a π a π Upos(t) xa(t3) = xa(t) , (11) φ01 = cos a + ( 1) sin a , | i | i | i  8 | i −  8 | i π π for all t [t3,t5] and all a 0, 1 . φa = sin a + ( 1)a cos a , (7) ∈ ∈{ } | 11i 8 | i − 8 | i From the time t3, Bob performs an experiment     in the spacetime region R to measure whetherSM the for all a 0, 1 . An important property of the singlet is geom ∈{ } spacetime geometry in Rgeom is in the classical state G0 that it can be expressed by (2) in any qubit orthonormal | i or G1 . Let S denote the degrees of freedom correspond- basis 0 , 1 . In particular, we have | i {| i | i} ing to the spacetime geometry in the spacetime region − 1 0 1 1 0 Rgeom. According to assumption 5, if S is in the state Ψ = φαα′ φαα′ φαα′ φαα′ , (8) | i √2 | i| i − | i| i Gi then the experiment outputs the bit s = i with  | i SM 7

Time

Fred

t 6 R b B

Tmac

t5 quantum β' measurement T'rand

t 4 U t pos( ) s Rgeom

Tgeom SM

t3

Umac Tmic

Uβ t mic 2 R a A B'

Tred quantum measurement β t1

α, α' Trand A B

t0

Dent

Alice Bob

Space

FIG. 1. Our thought experiment. We illustrate the thought experiment used to show Theorem 1, in the reference frame Fred in a background Minkowski spacetime, as described in the main text. Alice’s and Bob’s actions take place within the spacetime regions RA and RB, respectively, which are spacelike separated, as illustrated by the light rays (thick diagonal lines). The generation of random numbers in the experiment is illustrated by the rounded rectangles. The short vertical arrows denote classical outputs.

certainty, for all i 0, 1 . Bob designs the experiment pleted and Bob obtains his outcome by the time t6 = ∈ { } so that it outputs a bit s with certainty at the time t5 + Tmac, for some Tmac > 0. SM ′ t4. For example, if cannot distinguish whether S is If β = 1, at the time t5, Bob applies a unitary opera- SM ′ ′ in one of the classical states G0 or G1 , it outputs a tion U on BB satisfying | i | i mac random bit s. ′ U xa(t5) = a xfin , (12) mac| i | i| i ′ Between the times t4 and t5 = t4+Trand, Bob generates where xfin is a classical state for the position of the ′ ′ ′ | ′ i a random bit β , where Trand > 0. If β = 0, at the time system B , for all a 0, 1 . The unitary operation ′ 1 ′ ∈ { } t5, Bob measures BB in the basis mac = xb(t5) U is completed by the time t6. In this case, Bob sets B {| i}b=0 mac and obtains a bit outcome b. The measurement is com- b = 0 with unit probability, by the time t6. 8

Let RA be the spacetime region corresponding to Al- that ice’s location with the time coordinates t [t0,t2] in the ′ reference frame F . Let R be the spacetime∈ region P (abb αα β0)=0, (16) red B | corresponding to Bob’s location with the time coordi- for all a,b,α,α′,β 0, 1 . To show (16), we consider nates t [t0,t6] in the reference frame Fred, satisfying ′ ∈ { } ∈ ′ first the case α = 0 and β = α. In this case, Alice RB Rgeom. We note that Alice obtains her bits α, α a 1 ⊃ ′ measures her qubit A in the basis α0 = φα0 a=0 and and a in RA, and Bob obtains his bits β,β ,s and b in RB. B {|1 i} obtains a bit outcome a with probability 2 . Thus, from It follows from (5) and (6), and from the description of a (8), Alice’s qubit state reduces to φα0 and Bob’s qubit the experiment, that RA and RB are spacelike separated. a¯ | i ′ state reduces to φ . Then it is straightforward to ob- Thus, in particular, Bob obtains his bits β,β ,s and b at | α0i spacelike separation from Alice obtaining her bits α, α′ tain from (9) that after Bob applies the unitary opera- β and a. tion Umic, his qubit B transforms into the state a , up | i Let P (abs αα′ββ′) be the probability distribution for to a global phase. Thus, from (10), after applying the | Alice’s and Bob’s outcomes a,b,s, given their inputs unitary operation Umac, the position state of Bob’s joint ′ α, α′,β,β′, for all a,b,s,α,α′,β,β′ 0, 1 . We define quantum system BB transforms into the classical state ∈{ } xa(t3) at time t3 (up to a global phase). From (11), the 1 | i ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ worldline of BB is given by the classical state xa(t) , in PAB(ab αα ββ )= P (abs αα ββ ), | i | | the time interval t [t3,t5] (up to a global phase). From Xs=0 assumption 5, this∈ state generates the classical space- 1 ′ ′ ′ ′ time geometry state Ga (up to a global phase) for the PAS(as αα ββ )= P (abs αα ββ ), | i | | spacetime degrees of freedom S in the spacetime region Xb=0 Rgeom. Thus, Bob’s spacetime measurement experiment 1 ′ ′ ′ ′ outputs s = a in Rgeomwith certainty, and by the PBS(bs αα ββ )= P (abs αα ββ ), (13) SM | | time t4. From assumption 7, the experiment does Xa=0 not change the quantum state of the joint systemSM BB′; for all a,b,s,α,α′,β,β′ 0, 1 . or it reduces it according to the Born rule, in this case ∈{ } We show below that to its previous state xa(t4) at the time t4 = t3 + Tgeom | i ′ ′ 1 a s 2 with unit probability. Therefore, Bob’s joint system BB PAS(as αα β0) = φ ′ φ , (14) | 2 h αα | β0i remains in the quantum state xa(t4) after the exper- | i ′ iment , at time t4. Then, from (11), the location for all a,s,α,α ,β 0, 1 . From assumption 1, the of BB′SMcontinues to evolve in the worldline given by the probability distribution∈ { for} the outcomes a and s cannot ′ classical state xa(t) , during the time interval t [t4,t5]. depend on the value of β because this is a free vari- | i ′ ∈ Thus, at the time t5, the location of BB is given by the able (assumption 2) chosen at spacelike separation from state xa(t5) . Therefore, Bob’s quantum measurement Alice obtaining a (no-superluminal signalling) and in | i in the basis mac at the time t5 gives the outcome b = a the causal future of Bob obtaining s (no-retrocausality). B by the time t6 with certainty. Thus, it follows from the Thus, it follows from (14) that observation above that Alice obtains the outcome a with 1 ′ ′ 1 a s 2 probability 2 , that PAS(as αα ββ )= φ ′ φ , (15) | 2 h αα | β0i 1 for all a,s,α,α′,β,β′ 0, 1 . P (aaa α0α0) = , (17) ∈{ } | 2 Crucially, the probability distribution PAS(as α1β1) given by (15), i.e., when Alice sets α′ = 1 and Bob| sets for all a, α 0, 1 . It follows from (17) that ∈{ } β′ = 1, violates the CHSH inequality (1) and saturates P (aaa α0α0)=0, (18) the Tsirelson bound (3), by taking s as Bob’s output (see | Appendix A). In the case β′ = 1, Bob does not apply any ′ for all a, α 0, 1 . Thus, we have quantum measurement on his system BB . Bob’s only ∈{ } measurement in this case is the spacetime measurement 1 of the spacetime degrees of freedom S, with outcome PBS(bb α0α0) = P (abb α0α0) SM | | s. Thus, the violation of the CHSH inequality (1) by Xa=0 the probability distribution PAS(as α1β1) implies that = P (bbb α0α0) the spacetime degrees of freedom S violate| local causality | 1 [46]. This proves Theorem 1. = , (19) 2 for all b, α 0, 1 , where in the first line we used (13), A. Proof of (14) in the second∈ { line} we used (18), and in the third line we used (17). In what follows we consider the case β′ = 0 and show Then, since Bob obtains his outcomes b and s at (14). An important part of our proof comprises to show spacelike separation from Alice generating her inputs α 9

′ ′ and α , the principle of no-superluminal signalling (as- the time t3, Bob’s joint system BB has location given sumption 1) requires that Bob’s probability distribution by the quantum state ′ ′ PBS(bs αα β0) be independent of the values of α and α , | otherwise Alice could send a superluminal signal to Bob Ψ(t3) = C0 x0(t3) + C1 x1(t3) , (25) by choosing appropriate values of α and α′. Thus, from | i | i | i 2 2 (19), we obtain for some C0, C1 C satisfying C0 + C1 = 1. If left undisturbed, this∈ quantum state| evolves| | with| the unitary ′ 1 PBS(bb αα β0) = , (20) operation Upos(t) satisfying (11), between the time inter- | 2 val t [t3,t5]. Thus, from (25), and from assumptions ∈ ′ ′ 5, 6 and 7, reduces the quantum state of BB to for all b, α, α ,β 0, 1 . It follows from (20) that SM 2 ∈{ } xi(t4) and outputs s = i with probability Ci at the ′ | i | | PBS(bb αα β0)=0, (21) time t4, for all i 0, 1 . Then, from (11), this state | ∈ { } evolves unitarily to xi(t5) at the time t5. This means for all b, α, α′,β 0, 1 . Then, from (13) and (21), we | i ∈ { } that the joint action of the unitary operation Upos(t) from have t3 to t5 and the spacetime measurement from t3 to SM ′ 1 t4 modifies the quantum state for the location of BB in P (abb αα′β0)=0, (22) the same way as the joint action of the unitary opera- | Xa=0 tion Upos(t) from t3 to t5 and the quantum measurement ′ mac = x0(t5) , x1(t5) at the time t5 with outcome for all b, α, α ,β 0, 1 . Thus, (16) follows from (22). Bs 0, {|1 . Thus,i | in thisi} case, the probability distri- ∈{ } ∈ { } ′ Our proof of (14) considers two broad cases, in agree- bution PAS(as αα β0) can be derived by assuming that | ment with assumption 7. In the first case, we assume that Bob’s actions are the unitary operation U β on B, fol- Bob’s measurement of the spacetime degrees of freedom mic lowed by the unitary operations Umac and Upos(t) with S in the experiment does not change the quantum ′ SM′ t [t3,t5] on BB , and then by the quantum measure- state of his system BB . In the second case, we assume ∈ ′ ment mac on BB with outcome s 0, 1 . The proba- that Bob’s experiment reduces the quantum state B ′ ∈{ } ′ SM bility distribution PAB (ab αα β0) given by (23) was de- of BB within the time interval Tgeom according to the rived precisely under these| assumptions. Thus, in this Born rule. ′ case, PAS(as αα β0) is equivalent to the probability dis- We show (14) in the case that does not change the | ′ ′ SM tribution PAB(ab αα β0) given by (23), by replacing B quantum state of BB . In this case, we can determine the | ′ ′ by S and b by s, for all a,b,s,α,α ,β 0, 1 . Therefore, probability distribution PAB(ab αα β0) by ignoring the (14) follows from (23). ∈{ } action of and assuming that| Bob’s actions are only SM β the unitary operations Umic, Umac and Upos(t), followed by the quantum measurement . This situation is mac IV. DISCUSSION described purely by quantum theory.B Thus, in this case, it is straightforward to show (see Appendix B) that Arguments for the necessity of quantizing gravity and ′ 1 a b 2 spacetime can shed light about limits that QT must have PAB(ab αα β0) = φ ′ φ , (23) | 2 h αα | β0i if gravity and spacetime are fundamentally classical. For

′ example, Kent’s [26] refutation of the Eppley-Hannah for all a,b,α,α ,β 0, 1 . Thus, we have ∈{ } [21] argument is based on the logical possibility that a 1 modification of standard QT, with localized quantum ′ ′ ′ PAS(ab αα β0) = P (ab b αα β0) state reduction obeying the Born rule, can be combined | | bX′=0 with a theory of gravity that interacts with the local = P (abb αα′β0) quantum state. Other refutations [32, 89] of the Eppley- | 1 Hannah argument reason that momentum might not be = P (abs αα′β0) conserved fundamentally. Moreover, a recent argument | Xs=0 [23] has been evaded by the construction of a theory of ′ classical gravity coupled to quantum matter fields with = PAB(ab αα β0) | fundamentally stochastic dynamics [27]. 1 a b 2 = φ ′ φ , (24) Similarly, our theorem can be understood as shedding 2 h αα | β0i light about possible limitations that QT might have if for a,b,α,α′,β 0, 1 , as claimed; where in the first spacetime were fundamentally classical. For example, vi- line we used (13∈); {in the} second and third lines we used olation of our assumptions 6 or 9 suggest that it might (16); in the fourth line we used (13); and in the last line not be possible to maintain the location of a sufficiently we used (23). massive system in quantum superposition beyond a cer- Now we show (14) in the case that reduces the tain time, or that it might not be possible to distribute ′ SM quantum state of BB within the time interval Tgeom ac- quantum entanglement beyond a certain distance. Alter- cording to the Born rule, as stated by assumption 7. At natively, the spacetime measurement in our thought SM 10 experiment might require different dynamics to the ones different macroscopic gravitational fields whose measure- discussed in assumption 7. ment outcomes violate a Bell inequality. However, assumption 4 in our theorem is very strong. Thus, a standard viewpoint could simply be that this assumption cannot hold due to apparently being in con- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS flict with general relativity. Nevertheless, we have argued that this assumption does not violate relativistic causal- The author acknowledges financial support from ity. In particular, the satisfaction of the no-signalling the UK Quantum Communications Hub grant no. principle by quantum theory implies that a superlumi- EP/T001011/1 and thanks Adrian Kent for helpful con- nal quantum state reduction, as suggested in assumption versations. 4, does not allow us to communicate information faster than light. Moreover, strictly speaking, general relativ- ity does not say how spacetime should be described in Appendix A: Proof that the probability distribution the presence of matter in quantum superpositions or in (15) violates the CHSH inequality entangled quantum states. It is plausible that some no- tions about relativistic causality might need extension in We show that the CHSH inequality (1) is violated, and a theory unifying quantum theory and general relativity. the Tsirelson bound (3) is saturated, by the probability Despite these observations, our main argument to sup- distribution PAS (as α1β1) given by (15), i.e., when Alice port assumption 4 is based on the Pusey-Barret-Rudolph sets α′ = 1 and Bob| set β′ = 1, where theorem [70] suggesting that the quantum state is real, and in the observed violation of Bell inequalities [59–61]. ICHSH = E(0, 0)+ E(0, 1) E(1, 0)+ E(1, 1), (A1) Nonetheless, it would be interesting to investigate further − arguments that do not require this arguable assumption. and where

Although our other assumptions, assumptions 1–3 and 1 assumption 5, might seem more reasonable, it is in princi- E(α, β)= PAS(aa α1β1) PAS(aa¯ α1β1) , (A2) ple possible that they could need re-evaluation in a unifi- | − | Xa=0 cation of general relativity with quantum theory. For ex-   ample, as mentioned, Maldacena and Susskind [91] have for all α, β 0, 1 . speculated that quantum systems in entangled states In the main∈{ text,} we defined the qubit orthogonal bases might be connected via wormholes. ′ a 1 a αα = φαα′ a=0, where the quantum states φαα′ are Our theorem assumes ideal situations with no errors. Bgiven by{| (7), fori} all α, α′,a 0, 1 . It follows| straight-i However, it can be straightforwardly extended to allow forwardly from (7) that ∈ { } for small error probabilities. In particular, assumption 5 considers that there are classical spacetime geometries a s¯ 2 1 a⊕s 1 φα φβ = 1 ( 1) , (A3) that can be perfectly distinguished. This can be extended |h 1| 0i| 2 − − √2 to allow for a small probability of error. Assumption 6 considers that the quantum superposition for the loca- if (α, β) (0, 0), (0, 1), (1, 1) , and that ∈ tion of a massive system can be maintained perfectly for  a sufficiently long time. This assumption can be relaxed a s¯ 2 1 a⊕s 1 φα1 φβ0 = 1 + ( 1) , (A4) so that the change of fidelity of the quantum state for |h | i| 2 − √2 this superposition can be kept within a small range for the considered time interval. Finally, assumption 9 con- if (α, β) = (1, 0), for all a,s 0, 1 , where ‘ ’ denotes siders the distribution of a perfect singlet state over long sum modulo 2. Thus, from (∈15 {), and} from (A1⊕) – (A4), distances. This can be extended to allow the distribution we obtain of a quantum entangled state that is close to a singlet. Bell’s theorem [42], that there exist quantum correla- ICHSH = 2√2, (A5) − tion violating local causality, is one of the most striking features of quantum theory. For this reason, we have which violates the CHSH inequality (1) and saturates the assumed here that the satisfaction of Bell inequalities by Tsirelson bound (3), as claimed. spacetime degrees of freedom in a background Minkowski spacetime is a necessary condition for spacetime to be sensibly called “classical”. However, this might change Appendix B: Proof of (23) with different definitions of classicality. Related to this, we note that Kent [97] has proposed a definition of the We show (23) in the case that does not change the non-local causality of spacetime. According to Kent’s quantum state of BB′. In thisSM case, we can determine ′ definition, spacetime is non-locally causal if the measure- the probability distribution PAB(ab αα β0) by ignoring ment choices and outcomes of a Bell experiment on dis- the action of . This situation| is described purely tant entangled quantum particles can be amplified with by quantum theory.SM Since Alice’s actions commute with 11

Bob’s ones, we can analyse the situation by considering Now suppose that Bob inputs β = 1. From (8), the that Bob implements his actions before Alice. initial quantum state of the joint system ABB′ can be Suppose that Bob inputs β = 0. From (8), the initial expressed by ′ quantum state of the joint system ABB can be expressed − Ψ AB xinit B′ by | i | i 1 0 1 1 0 = φ10 φ10 φ10 φ10 xinit B′ . (B5) − √2 | i| i − | i| i AB| i Ψ AB xinit B′  | i | i 1 0 1 1 0 β = φ φ φ φ xinit B′ . (B1) In this case, we have Umic = Umic. From (9), after Bob √ | 00i| 00i − | 00i| 00i AB| i ′ 2  applies Umic on his qubit B, the system ABB transforms into β 1 In this case Umic = is the identity operation. From (10) − ′ Umic Ψ AB xinit B′ and (B1), after Bob applies Umac on BB at the time t3, | i | i ′ 1 0 1 1 0 the system ABB transforms into = φ φ + φ φ xinit B′ . (B6) −√2 | 10i| 00i | 10i| 00i AB| i  ′ − Then, Bob applies Umac on his joint system BB and, at Umac Ψ AB xinit B′ ′ | i | i the time t3, the quantum state of ABB transforms into 1 0 1 = φ00 A x1(t3) BB′ φ00 A x0(t3) BB′ . − √ | i | i − | i | i UmacUmic Ψ AB xinit B′ 2  | i | i (B2) 1 0 1 = φ A x1(t3) BB′ + φ A x0(t3) BB′ , −√ | 10i | i | 10i | i 2  The system BB′ follows the unitary evolution given by (B7) (11) during the time interval [t3,t5]. Thus, at the time ′ ′ as follows from (10). The system BB follows the unitary t5, the quantum state of the joint system ABB is given by evolution given by (11) during the time interval [t3,t5]. Thus, at the time t5, the quantum state of the joint sys- ′ − tem ABB is given by Upos(t5)Umac Ψ AB xinit B′ | i | i − 1 0 1 Upos(t5)UmacUmic Ψ AB xinit B′ = φ00 A x1(t5) BB′ φ00 A x0(t5) BB′ . | i | i √2 | i | i − | i | i 1 0 1  = φ A x1(t5) BB′ + φ A x0(t5) BB′ . (B3) −√2 | 10i | i | 10i | i  (B8) ′ Then, Bob measures BB in the basis mac = ′ 1 B 1 Then, Bob measures BB in the basis mac = xb(t5) b=0 at the time t5. With probability 2 , Bob 1 B 1 {| i} xb(t5) at the time t5. With probability , Bob obtains the outcome b, the quantum state of his joint {| i}b=0 2 ′ obtains the outcome b, the quantum state of his joint system BB reduces to xb(t5) , and the quantum state ′ | i b system BB reduces to xb(t5) , and the quantum state of Alice’s qubit A reduces to φ00 , for all b 0, 1 . | i b | i′ a ∈1 { } of Alice’s qubit A reduces to φ10 , for all b 0, 1 . Alice measures A in the basis αα = φαα′ a=0 and | i′ a ∈1 { } B a{| b i}2 Alice measures A in the basis αα = φαα′ a=0 and ′ obtains outcome a with probability φαα φ00 , for all B a{| b i}2 h | i obtains outcome a with probability φ ′ φ , for all a 0, 1 . Thus, we have h αα | 10i ∈{ } a 0, 1 . Thus, we have ∈{ } 1 2 ′ a b 2 PAB(ab αα 00) = φ ′ φ , (B4) ′ 1 a b αα 00 PAB(ab αα 10) = φ ′ φ , (B9) | 2 h | i | 2 h αα | 10i

for all a,b,α,α′ 0, 1 , which is (23) for the case β = 0. for all a,b,α,α′ 0, 1 , which is (23) for the case β = 1. ∈{ } ∈{ }

[1] M. Arndt, O. Nairz, J. Vos-Andreae, C. Keller, J. T¨uxen, Matter–wave interference of particles selected G. Van der Zouw, and A. Zeilinger, Wave–particle du- from a molecular library with masses exceeding 10000 ality of C60 molecules, Nature 401, 680 (1999). amu, Phys. Chem. Chem. Phys. 15, 14696 (2013). [2] A. D. Cronin, J. Schmiedmayer, and D. E. Pritchard, [5] M. Arndt and K. Hornberger, Testing the Optics and interferometry with atoms and molecules, limits of quantum mechanical superpositions, Rev. Mod. Phys. 81, 1051 (2009). Nat. Phys. 10, 271 (2014). [3] K. Hornberger, S. Gerlich, P. Haslinger, S. Nimmrichter, [6] Y. Y. Fein, P. Geyer, P. Zwick, F. Kia lka, S. Ped- and M. Arndt, Colloquium: Quantum interference of alino, M. Mayor, S. Gerlich, and M. Arndt, Quan- clusters and molecules, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84, 157 (2012). tum superposition of molecules beyond 25 kda, [4] S. Eibenberger, S. Gerlich, M. Arndt, M. Mayor, and Nat. Phys. 15, 1242 (2019). 12

[7] F. Karolyhazy, Gravitation and quan- verse of general relativity (Springer, 2005) pp. 327–338. tum mechanics of macroscopic objects, [34] C. W¨uthrich, To quantize or not to quan- Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970) 42, 390 (1966). tize: Fact and folklore in quantum gravity, [8] L. Di´osi, A universal master equation for the Philosophy of Science 72, 777 (2005). gravitational violation of quantum mechanics, [35] S. Carlip, Is quantum gravity necessary?, Phys. Lett. A 120, 377 (1987). Class. Quantum Grav. 25, 154010 (2008). [9] L. Di´osi, Models for universal reduction of macroscopic [36] S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ul- quantum fluctuations, Phys. Rev. A 40, 1165 (1989). bricht, M. Toroˇs, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, [10] R. Penrose, On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction, P. F. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn, Gen. Relat. Gravit. 28, 581 (1996). Spin entanglement witness for quantum gravity, [11] R. Penrose, Quantum computation, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 240401 (2017). entanglement and state reduction, [37] C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Gravitationally in- Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A. 356, 1927 (1998). duced entanglement between two massive particles [12] A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh, is sufficient evidence of quantum effects in gravity, and H. Ulbricht, Models of wave-function col- Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 240402 (2017). lapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests, [38] C. H. Bennett, G. Brassard, C. Cr´epeau, R. Jozsa, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 471 (2013). A. Peres, and W. K. Wootters, Teleporting an unknown [13] A. Bassi, A. Großardt, and H. Ulbricht, Gravitational quantum state via dual classical and Einstein-Podolsky- decoherence, Class. Quantum Grav. 34, 193002 (2017). Rosen channels, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 1895 (1993). [14] M. Green, J. Schwarz, and E. Witten, Superstring Theory [39] C. H. Bennett and S. J. Wiesner, Communication via (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1987). one- and two-particle operators on Einstein-Podolsky- [15] C. Rovelli, Quantum Gravity (Cambridge University Rosen states, Phys. Rev. Lett. 69, 2881 (1992). Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004). [40] A. K. Ekert, Quantum cryptography based on Bell’s the- [16] L. Hardy, Probability theories with dynamic causal orem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 661 (1991). structure: a new framework for quantum gravity, [41] R. Jozsa, Entanglement and quantum computation, arXiv:gr-qc/0509120 (2005). Geometric Issues in the Foundations of Science (1997), [17] C. Kiefer, Quantum gravity: general introduction and preprint arXiv quant-ph/9707034. recent developments, Ann. Phys. 15, 129 (2006). [42] J. S. Bell, On the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paradox, [18] D. Oriti, ed., Approaches to Quantum Gravity: Toward a New UnderstandingPhysics 1, 195 of Space,(1964), Time reprinted and Matter in [98], pages 14–21. (Cambridge University Press, 2009). [43] N. Gisin, Bell’s inequality holds for all non-product [19] L. Hardy, The construction interpretation: Conceptual states, Phys. Lett. A 154, 201 (1991). roads to quantum gravity, arXiv:1807.10980 (2018). [44] S. Yu, Q. Chen, C. Zhang, C. H. Lai, and C. H. Oh, All [20] C. M. DeWitt and D. Rickles, The role of gravitation entangled pure states violate a single Bell’s inequality, in physics: report from the 1957 Chapel Hill conference Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 120402 (2012). (epubli, 2011) Chap. 23. [45] R. F. Werner, Quantum states with Einstein-Podolsky- [21] K. Eppley and E. Hannah, The necessity of quantizing Rosen correlations admitting a hidden-variable model, the gravitational field, Found. Phys. 7, 51 (1977). Phys. Rev. A 40, 4277 (1989). [22] D. R. Terno, Inconsistency of quantum-classical dynam- [46] J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt, ics, and what it implies, Found. Phys. 36, 102 (2006). Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theo- [23] C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Why we need ries, Phys. Rev. Lett. 23, 880 (1969). to quantise everything, including gravity, [47] B. S. Tsirel’son, Quantum analogues of the Bell in- npj Quantum Inf. 3, 1 (2017). equalities. The case of two spatially separated domains., [24] J. Mattingly, Why Eppley and Hannah’s thought exper- J. Sov. Math. 36, 557 (1987). iment fails, Phys. Rev. D 73, 064025 (2006). [48] S. J. Freedman and J. F. Clauser, Experi- [25] M. Albers, C. Kiefer, and M. Reginatto, mental test of local hidden-variable theories, Measurement analysis and quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28, 938 (1972). Phys. Rev. D 78, 064051 (2008). [49] A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Experimen- [26] A. Kent, Simple refutation of the Eppley–Hannah argu- tal tests of realistic local theories via Bell’s theorem, ment, Class. Quantum Grav. 35, 245008 (2018). Phys. Rev. Lett. 47, 460 (1981). [27] J. Oppenheim, A post-quantum theory of classical grav- [50] A. Aspect, P. Grangier, and G. Roger, Experimental ity?, arXiv:1811.03116 (2018). realization of Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedanken- [28] S. Carlip, Quantum gravity: a progress report, experiment : A new violation of Bell’s inequalities, Rep. Prog. Phys 64, 885 (2001). Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 91 (1982). [29] C. Kiefer, Conceptual problems in quantum gravity and [51] A. Aspect, J. Dalibard, and G. Roger, Experimental quantum cosmology, International Scholarly Research test of Bell’s inequalities using time- varying analyzers, Notices 2013, 10.1155/2013/509316 (2013). Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1804 (1982). [30] C. Møller et al., Les th´eories relativistes de la gravitation, [52] G. Weihs, T. Jennewein, C. Simon, H. Wein- Colloques Internationaux CNRS 91 (1962). furter, and A. Zeilinger, Violation of Bell’s in- [31] L. Rosenfeld, On quantization of fields, equality under strict Einstein locality conditions, Nucl. Phys. 40, 353 (1963). Phys. Rev. Lett. 81, 5039 (1998). [32] N. Huggett and C. Callender, Why quantize [53] M. A. Rowe, D. Kielpinski, V. Meyer, C. A. Sackett, gravity (or any other field for that matter)?, W. M. Itano, C. Monroe, and D. J. Wineland, Experi- Philosophy of Science 68, S382 (2001). mental violation of a Bell’s inequality with efficient de- [33] J. Mattingly, Is quantum gravity necessary?, in The uni- tection, Nature 409, 791 (2001). 13

[54] D. N. Matsukevich, P. Maunz, D. L. Moehring, Found. Phys. 40, 125 (2010). S. Olmschenk, and C. Monroe, Bell inequal- [69] C. A. Fuchs and R. Schack, QBism and the Greeks: why a ity violation with two remote atomic qubits, quantum state does not represent an element of physical Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 150404 (2008). reality, Phys. Scr. 90, 015104 (2014). [55] M. Ansmann, H. Wang, R. C. Bialczak, M. Hofheinz, [70] M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, On the reality E. Lucero, M. Neeley, A. D. O’Connell, D. Sank, M. Wei- of the quantum state, Nat. Phys. 8, 475 (2012). des, J. Wenner, A. N. Cleland, and J. M. Martinis, Vi- [71] L. Hardy, Are quantum states real?, olation of Bell’s inequality in Josephson phase qubits, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 27, 1345012 (2013). Nature 461, 504 (2009). [72] M. K. Patra, S. Pironio, and S. Massar, No-go theorems [56] T. Scheidl, R. Ursin, J. Kofler, S. Ramelow, X.- for ψ-epistemic models based on a continuity assumption, S. Ma, T. Herbst, L. Ratschbacher, A. Fedrizzi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 090402 (2013). N. K. Langford, T. Jennewein, and A. Zeilinger, [73] J. Barrett, E. G. Cavalcanti, R. Lal, and O. J. E. Violation of local realism with freedom of choice, Maroney, No ψ-epistemic model can fully ex- Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 107, 19708 (2010). plain the indistinguishability of quantum states, [57] M. Giustina, A. Mech, S. Ramelow, B. Wittmann, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 250403 (2014). J. Kofler, J. Beyer, A. Lita, B. Calkins, T. Gerrits, S. W. [74] M. S. Leifer, Is the quantum state real? An extended Nam, R. Ursin, and A. Zeilinger, Bell violation using en- review of ψ-ontology theorems, Quanta 3, 67 (2014). tangled photons without the fair-sampling assumption, [75] H. Everett, Relative state formulation of quantum me- Nature 497, 227 (2013). chanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 (1957), reprinted in [58] P. M. Pearle, Hidden-variable example based upon data Ref. [76], pp. 141-149. rejection, Phys. Rev. D 2, 1418 (1970). [76] B. S. DeWitt and N. Graham, The many-worlds inter- [59] B. Hensen, H. Bernien, A. E. Dr´eau, A. Reiserer, N. Kalb, pretation of quantum mechanics, Vol. 63 (Princeton Uni- M. S. Blok, J. Ruitenberg, R. F. L. Vermeulen, R. N. versity Press, 2015). Schouten, C. Abell´an, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, M. W. [77] A. Kent, One world versus many: the in- Mitchell, M. Markham, D. J. Twitchen, D. Elkouss, adequacy of Everettian accounts of evolu- S. Wehner, T. H. Taminiau, and R. Hanson, Loophole- tion, probability, and scientific confirmation, in free Bell inequality violation using electron spins sepa- Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory and Reality, rated by 1.3 kilometres, Nature 526, 682 (2015). edited by S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, and D. Wal- [60] M. Giustina, M. A. M. Versteegh, S. Wengerowsky, lace (Oxford University Press, 2010) pp. 307–354, e-print J. Handsteiner, A. Hochrainer, K. Phelan, F. Steinlech- arXiv:0905.0624. ner, J. Kofler, J.-A. Larsson, C. Abell´an, W. Amaya, [78] P. Pearle, Reduction of the state vector by a nonlinear V. Pruneri, M. W. Mitchell, J. Beyer, T. Gerrits, A. E. Schr¨odinger equation, Phys. Rev. D 13, 857 (1976). Lita, L. K. Shalm, S. W. Nam, T. Scheidl, R. Ursin, [79] N. Gisin, Quantum measurements and stochastic pro- B. Wittmann, and A. Zeilinger, Significant-loophole- cesses, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 1657 (1984). free test of Bell’s theorem with entangled photons, [80] G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, A model for Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250401 (2015). a unified quantum description of macroscopic and micro- [61] L. K. Shalm, E. Meyer-Scott, B. G. Christensen, P. Bier- scopic systems, in Quantum Probability and Applications horst, M. A. Wayne, M. J. Stevens, T. Gerrits, S. Glancy, II (Springer, 1985) pp. 223–232. D. R. Hamel, M. S. Allman, K. J. Coakley, S. D. [81] G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Unified Dyer, C. Hodge, A. E. Lita, V. B. Verma, C. Lam- dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems, brocco, E. Tortorici, A. L. Migdall, Y. Zhang, D. R. Phys. Rev. D 34, 470 (1986). Kumor, W. H. Farr, F. Marsili, M. D. Shaw, J. A. [82] L. Diosi, Quantum stochastic processes Stern, C. Abell´an, W. Amaya, V. Pruneri, T. Jennewein, as models for state vector reduction, M. W. Mitchell, P. G. Kwiat, J. C. Bienfang, R. P. Mirin, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 21, 2885 (1988). E. Knill, and S. W. Nam, Strong loophole-free test of lo- [83] N. Gisin, Stochastic quantum dynamics and relativity, cal realism, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 (2015). Helv. Phys. Acta 62, 363 (1989). [62] D. Salart, A. Baas, J. A. W. van Houwelingen, [84] G. C. Ghirardi, P. Pearle, and A. Rimini, Markov N. Gisin, and H. Zbinden, Spacelike separation in a processes in Hilbert space and continuous sponta- Bell test assuming gravitationally induced collapses, neous localization of systems of identical particles, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 220404 (2008). Phys. Rev. A 42, 78 (1990). [63] A. Kent, Causal quantum theory and the collapse locality [85] P. Pearle, Relativistic collapse model with tachyonic fea- loophole, Phys. Rev. A 72, 012107 (2005). tures, Phys. Rev. A 59, 80 (1999). [64] A. Kent, Stronger tests of the collapse-locality loophole [86] P. Pearle, Quasirelativistic quasilocal finite wave-function in Bell experiments, Phys. Rev. A 101, 012102 (2020). collapse model, Phys. Rev. A 71, 032101 (2005). [65] L. E. Ballentine, The statistical interpretation of quan- [87] R. Tumulka, A relativistic version of the Ghirardi– tum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 42, 358 (1970). Rimini–Weber model, J. Stat. Phys. 125, 821 (2006). [66] C. M. Caves, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, [88] D. J. Bedingham, Relativistic state reduction dynamics, Quantum probabilities as Bayesian probabilities, Found. Phys. 41, 686 (2011). Phys. Rev. A 65, 022305 (2002). [89] T. Maudlin, E. Okon, and D. Sudarsky, On the status of [67] R. W. Spekkens, Evidence for the epis- conservation laws in physics: Implications for semiclassi- temic view of quantum states: A toy theory, cal gravity, Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. B 69, 67 (2020). Phys. Rev. A 75, 032110 (2007). [90] K.-W. Bong, A. Utreras-Alarc´on, F. Ghafari, Y.-C. [68] N. Harrigan and R. W. Spekkens, Einstein, incom- Liang, N. Tischler, E. G. Cavalcanti, G. J. Pryde, and pleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states, H. M. Wiseman, A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s 14

friend paradox, Nat. Phys. 16, 1199 (2020). W.-Q. Cai, W.-Y. Liu, B. Li, H. Dai, G.-B. Li, Q.-M. Lu, [91] J. Maldacena and L. Susskind, Cool horizons for entan- Y.-H. Gong, Y. Xu, S.-L. Li, F.-Z. Li, Y.-Y. Yin, Z.-Q. gled black holes, Fortschr. Phys. 61, 781 (2013). Jiang, M. Li, J.-J. Jia, G. Ren, D. He, Y.-L. Zhou, X.-X. [92] G. Feinberg, Possibility of faster-than-light particles, Zhang, N. Wang, X. Chang, Z.-C. Zhu, N.-L. Liu, Y.-A. Phys. Rev. 159, 1089 (1967). Chen, C.-Y. Lu, R. Shu, C.-Z. Peng, J.-Y. Wang, and J.- [93] A. Kent, Testing causal quantum theory, W. Pan, Satellite-based entanglement distribution over Proc. R. Soc. A. 474, 20180501 (2018). 1200 kilometers, Science 356, 1140 (2017). [94] W. Heisenberg, The Physical Principles of the Quantum [97] A. Kent, A proposed test of the Theory (University of Chicago Press, 1930) pp. 16–21, local causality of spacetime, in translated by C. Eckart and F. C. Hoyt. Quantum Reality, Relativistic Causality, and Closing the Epistemic Circle: Essays in Honour of Abner Shimony [95] G. Ghirardi, R. Grassi, and A. Rimini, Continuous- (Springer, 2009) pp. 369–378, e-print arXiv:gr- spontaneous-reduction model involving gravity, qc/0507045. Phys. Rev. A 42, 1057 (1990). [98] J. S. Bell, Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechan- [96] J. Yin, Y. Cao, Y.-H. Li, S.-K. Liao, L. Zhang, J.-G. Ren, ics (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987).