sign in sign up
<<
Home , LIGO

Testing the and discreteness of through the t3 gravitational phase with quantum information technology.

Fabrizio Tamburini∗ ZKM – Zentrum f¨urKunst und Medientechnologie, Lorentzstr. 19, D-76135, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Ignazio Licata† Institute for Scientific Methodology (ISEM) Palermo Italy School of Advanced International Studies on Theoretical and Nonlinear Methodologies of , Bari, I-70124, Italy and International Institute for Applicable Mathematics and Information Sciences (IIAMIS), B.M. Birla Science Centre, Adarsh Nagar, Hyderabad – 500 463, India

We propose a new thought experiment, based on present-day Quantum Information Technologies, to measure quantum gravitational effects through the Bose-Marletto-Vedral (BMV) effect [1–4] by revealing the gravitational t3 phase term, its expected relationships with low- quantum phenomena and test the equivalence principle of . The technique here proposed promise to reveal gravitational field fluctuations from the analysis of the stochastic noise associated to an ideal output of a measurement process of a quantum system. To improve the sensitivity we propose to cumulate the effects of the gravitational field fluctuations in time on the outputs of a series of independent measurements acted on entangled states of particles, like in the building of a quantum cryptographic key, and extract from the associated time series the effect of the expected gravitational field fluctuations. In fact, an ideal quantum cryptographic key, built with the sharing of maximally entangled states of particles, is represented by a random sequence of uncorrelated symbols mathematically described by a perfect white noise, a stochastic process with zero mean and without correlation between its values taken at different times. Gravitational field perturbations, including fluctuations and gravitational waves, introduce additional phase terms that decohere the entangled pairs used to build the quantum cryptographic key, with the result of coloring the white noise [5, 6]. We find that this setup, built with massive mesoscopic particles, can potentially reveal the t3 gravitational phase term and thus, the BMV effect.

PACS numbers:

I. INTRODUCTION servable effects due to the presence of low-energy quan- tum gravity (LEQG) fluctuations. The results of the Large Hadron Collider experiments [12, 13] excluded the Quantum Gravity (QG) can be at all effects considered presence of QG phenomenologies and fluctuations at en- the Holy Grail of modern physics. Up to now, there is not ergies up to the 10 TeV scale when the Higgs boson [14] a complete theory of quantum gravity, even if there are was discovered. In Refs. [15, 16] was instead suggested many attempts of quantizing and time, with very to test the presence of LEQGs by analysing the propaga- elegant mathematical formulations such as string theory tion of photons in search for the loss of phase [7] together with M theory [8], brane-world scenario [9] in the light due to QG fluctuations that are expected to and loop quantum gravity [10]. At all effects, gravita- progressively blur the images of distant sources such as tion is the first fundamental force of nature that was de- supernovae and quasars [15–23]. Excluding instrumen- scribed with a precise formal language by Isaac Newton tal effects, the expected decoherence of photons travel- about four centuries ago, in 1686 and it is the last known ing from the distant quasars are due to the convolution arXiv:2108.08438v1 [gr-qc] 19 Aug 2021 fundamental force that, at the present time, has not been of three main effects: the QG fluctuations, the stochastic quantized. The continuum structure of space and time background and the scattering with described by Einstein’s General Relativity is thought to the atoms of the interstellar and intergalactic medium. break down at very small scales, generating a fluctuating The lacking of detection may suggest either that the en- and non-smooth structure where space and time are not ergy fluctuations occur at spatial scales much below those locally well defined, also known as spacetime foam [11]. expected from sub–millimetric QG scenarios or that one Strings and other alternative formulations of QG, such has to investigate more in detail the effect of these fluc- as Supergravity or Brane-World scenario, suggest that tuations on the propagation of photons in free space and quantum gravity may also manifest at much be- improve the analysis with the future images of the far- low the Planck scale with expected macroscopically ob- thest quasars from the James Webb Space Telescope. In any case, the amplitude of these fluctuations result smaller than of those caused by the stochastic GW back- ground estimated around 6.9 × 10−6 at 95% confidence ∗Electronic address: [email protected] level [24, 25], up to now unobservable with the use of †Electronic address: [email protected] photons also in the lab. 2

Recently, Susskind and Maldacena proposed that at whilst a standard interferometer is limited by√ the shot Planck scales QG fluctuations and the texture of space- noise and its sensitivity depends on the 1/ N factor, time are related to Einstein-Podolski-Rosen (EPR) en- where N is the number of photons/particles (i.e. the sig- tangled states [26, 27] through the equivalence with nal), instead, a two-particle entangled device is limited Einstein–Rosen (ER) wormholes [28], also known as the by a smaller factor, 1/N. Of course the price to pay is ER=EPR conjecture [29–32]. Up to now, no clear effects related to the production and control of the entangled were observed [33, 34] indicating either that the energy states for an optimal sub- [56]. fluctuations should occur at spatial scales much below Quantum optical information technologies find several those hypothesized by the sub–millimetric models or that applications in quantum information, quantum computa- one has to analyze more in deep the possible interactions tion science, quantum cryptography, quantum radiome- between photons and [35, 36]. try and metrology [57, 58], and is starting involving also In this work we propose an ideal experiment based on applied sciences such as (Quantum Astron- quantum information technologies and entangled states omy) [59–61] and biology (Quantum Biology) [62, 63]. to verify the principle of equivalence (PE) through the One of the most fascinating theoretical and experimen- t3 phase factor according to Ref. [1–4] and discuss the tal frontiers in physics is the experimental study of EPR detection of the shadowy signatures of the emergence of correlations and Bell States thanks to the possibility of LEQG fluctuations. The t3 phase factor is a potential producing controlled single photons and entangled pho- key to reveal in future experiments the validity of models ton states either on demand (photon guns) or heralded. of low-energy perturbative quantum gravity like those Heralded photons, produced during a parametric down- present in string theory and loop quantum gravity. conversion process, take this name because they are “la- The possibility of detecting LEQG fluctuations with belled” by the detection and counting of coincidences of current gravitational wave (GW) detectors has been re- their correlated or entangled twins. For a better insight, cently discussed in Ref. [37, 38]. The detection of GWs is see Ref. [64–72]. one of the most important revolutions in modern multi- In our ideal experiment gravitational field fluctuations messenger astronomy [39–41] and a challenging and out- may be revealed with quantum information technolo- standing test of Einstein’s General Relativity and the gies through the cumulating decoherence that affects the subject of current and next-generation experiments such quantum states. Being an ideal experiment, here we do as LIGO and VIRGO with the recent observations of not take in account, for the sake of simplicity, the pos- GWs [42–51], experiments mainly based on classical in- sible effects due to the instrumental noise. The reader, terferometric techniques affected by the presence of pho- interested in this topic may find a deeper insight in Refs. ton shot noise [52] that can be reduced with techniques [5, 6, 55]. In this work we adopt the so–called natural based on squeezed light [53]. GWs are wave-like solu- units, by assuming c = ~ = G = 1. tions of Einstein’s General Relativity. For a brief in- troduction see Ref. [54]. In the weak field limit, any gravitational field perturbation can be described in terms of a small perturbation hij (|h| << 1) occurring in a Minkowsky spacetime support. The metric tensor be- II. GRAVITATIONAL FIELD FLUCTUATIONS (0) (0) AND THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE comes gij = gij + hij, where gij is the metric tensor of the unperturbed Minkowsky spacetime background. Quantum information-based GW detectors are “dig- The detection of general gravitational field perturba- ital” detectors based on coincidence of events [5, 6, 55] tions, including those generated by LEQG, can proceed and actually may improve the search for LEQGs. General in a similar way as discussed in [5, 6], where the au- spacetime fluctuations and GWs reveal their presence be- thors analyzed the problem of building of a quantum having as shadow eavesdroppers that distort the quan- cryptographic key in a curved spacetime with entangled tum encryption key statistics away from a pure white states. For this reason, one must first consider the gen- noise after the analysis of the emerging color distortions eral case where relativistic effects either due to random in the key. In the same line, a different approach based on fluctuations of spacetime or to the problem of simultane- quantum technologies and entangled states is described ity might affect the structure of a quantum key. Moreover in In Ref. [55], where, the presence of a gravitational one has also to take in account at those small scales also wave (GW) causes a relative rotation of the reference the problems due to the effective quantum mechanical frames associated to the double-slit and to the test po- aspects of the photons used as tools to reveal the basic larizer of a Walborn’s quantum eraser. In this case, the structure of spacetime expected from the different Quan- macroscopic spacetime fluctuations caused by the GW tum Gravity scenarios. are revealed by the detection of heralded photons in the In the general scheme of an entangled states based de- dark fringes of the recovered interference pattern by the tector, two observers, with initial relative zero velocity, A quantum eraser. and B, act on shared maximally entangled pairs of pho- The advantage of using entanglement-based devices tons (polarization, energy/time, momentum/space) gen- is the possibility of reaching sub shot-noise sensitivity: erated in a superposition of states by a local parametric 3

1 down-conversion process, 2 particles entangled in energy/time . If τA and τB are the proper times of a photon detection measured in the 1 iφ reference frames of the observers A and B, respectively, to |Ψi = √ [|1iA|2iB + e |2iA|1iB] (1) 2 cross-correlate the two strings of data, both the observers must synchronize the first detection event according to where |1iA,B and |2iA,B build the basis of eigenvectors for General Relativity and the local time intervals, measured the singlet state, and are measured in the respective local after the first detection event must be corrected by the Galilean reference frames of the two experimenters. The factors parameter φ is the phase factor that characterizes the properties of the entangled state. The states are maxi- q ∆τA,B = ∆t/ −g00(xA,B) = (3) mally entangled for eiφ = ±1. q The main limits for this thought experiment and also (0) = ∆t −g (xA,B) − h00(xA,B) for the building of a quantum key in a curved space- 00 time come directly from the wave nature of the photon If the two observers, instead, decide at a certain proper itself and from the presence of the time windows that time τA or τB, related to an external event {x}, to stop are needed to the experimenters to consider as undistin- their measurements and compare their strings of local guishable the two entangled photons in each pair [64]. detections without synchronizing their photon counting The time of arrival for each single photon is thus deter- data records, one then expects that the different time mined within a time indetermination interval ∆W that delays induced by a gravitational perturbation would also cannot be reduced to a quantity smaller than that of the differently affect the length of each string of data: length photon coherence time itself. Similarly to what is usu- [A] - length [B] 6= 0, being ally assumed for a Quantum Key Distribution scheme, both the observers build independently a record of data s length[A] g00(xB) labelled with the time of arrival of each photon detection, ∼ . (4) length[B] g (x ) and also labeling any detected quanta with the measured 00 A quantum state, either |1i or |2i. If the states of a simulta- Together with the problem of simultaneity and of the neous event detection coincide, “1” is written, otherwise differences between the proper local times, the experi- “0”. After running a cycle of measurements, A and B menters must also consider the effects due to the presence extract the set of coincident detections from their strings of ∆W , that unavoidably affects both the measure of the of data and generate a string of “0” ’s and “1” ’s, whose perturbation amplitude h and that of the reduced spatial distribution follows, in an ideal experiment performed in 0 λgw = λgw/2π. In fact, if one considers the flat Minkowsky spacetime, that of a pure Markovian pro- example of a plane GW propagating in a direction per- cess with no memory in time [5, 6]. pendicular to the plane identified by the entangled state In the weak field limit, any perturbation can be propagation [15] than obtains Fourier-decomposed and described in the so-called transverse-traceless formulation (t.t.) as occurs for grav- ∆W δht ' . (5) itational waves. The metric perturbation then becomes  r  2λgw sin 0 2λgw Z ∞ Z ˆ −2πft ˆ ˆ + ˆ hab(t) = df dΩe [h+(f, Ω)eab(Ω) + (2) After having corrected the effects due to the lack of si- −∞ multaneity between the two events, and following [5, 6], ˆ ˆ × ˆ + h×(f, Ω)eab(Ω)] the result of the cross-correlation S(t) of the N local mea- surements is a sequence of “0” ’s and “1” ’s that can be ˆ ˆ ˆ∗ ˆ where f is the frequency, h+,×(−f, Ω) = h+,×(f, Ω) rep- described by using the mathematical formalism of frac- resent the unit vector of the wave propagation, dΩˆ = tional brownian motions and fractional calculus. With- +,× ˆ d cos θdφ is the solid angle and eab (Ω) the GW’s polar- out loosing in generality, when N becomes very large and ization vectors “+” and “×” [73]. the discrete string can be approximated by a continuous Simultaneity, energy, momentum and polarization di- process and use Ito stochastic calculus [75]. rections of photons are not preserved in General and Spe- cial Relativity [74] and those effects must be taken in S(t) = s(t) + n(t) ∼ Q(t)W ht + W ht, (6) account by A and B to find the coincidences between The quantity s(t) is the perturbation in the string caused each couple of events in the building of a cryptographic by the gravitational wave and n(t) is the unperturbed key. The gravitational perturbations change also both the distance between the two observers and the proper local times of A and B with the result of affecting the co- incidences between the measured time of arrival of each 1 The use of entangled pairs in momentum/space is equivalent to particle of the entangled pair or, conversely, the path that the energy/time described in the main text with the caveat that a particle has to travel inside an interferometer [5, 6, 55]. one has to measure path lengths in their respective reference Consider, without loosing in generality, a state of N = frames instead of time intervals. 4 markovian process. W h(t), which is a white noise pro- and can be revealed from Eq. 1 as the states are not max- cess related to the differential of the standard brownian imally entangled any more, behaving as δφ were due to motion dBt = W htdt. Finally, the quantity Q(x, t) is the effect of an additional and deterministic term present the local perturbation. Of course without GWs/LEQG in the stochastic process that builds up the quantum fluctuations the distribution of voids and detections is a cryptographic key. In fact, from Wold theorem [77, 78], pure white noise, with zero average. In the presence of a one can discriminate the pure white noise of an ideal gravitational perturbation, the difference between detec- quantum cryptographic key from a stochastic process by tions and non detections is expected to be different from using the two-dimensional correlation analysis, used to zero study changes in measured signals or time series [79]. Z T 1 N[1] − N[0] = [1 + Q(x, t)]dBt (7) 2 t0 0 and the stochastic differential term dBt = W htdt must be expressed in terms of the proper local time of each the observers. The observer A, for example, obtains

N[1] − N[0] = 1 Z TA 1 Z TB W h0 dτ + Q(x, τ )W h0 dτ = τA A B τB B 2 τA,0 2 τB,0 " s # Z TA 1 g00(xA) = dτAW hτ,A 1 + Q(x, τA) 2 τA,0 g00(xB) that in the weak field approximation becomes

N[1] − N[0] '  s   1 Z TA  g (x ) ∆W  FIG. 1: 2D averaged cross-correlation analysis of the matrix of dB 1 + 00 A 1 − τA     a sample of 100-element quantum cryptographic keys: In the 2 τ g00(xB) r A,0  4λgw sin 0  3 2λgw main figure is shown the effects of the t phase term used to verify the equivalence principle which induces off-diagonal showing that any gravitational field perturbation can be terms colouring the white noise with non-white correlations. put in evidence through the discoloration of the white Inset: The ideal quantum cryptographic key is characterized noise of the coincidence detections. Here r s the distance by a perfect white-noise (without the effect of the phase factor 3 between the two observers and λgw the wavelength of the t ). The diagonal terms dominates in for large numbers of the plane GW. key length and the cross-correlation simply becomes ∝ δij . LEQGs are related through the principle of equiva- lence (PE). The PE states the equivalence between the gravitational and inertial mass, or, in other words, an In Fig. 1 we report the simulation of a quantum cryp- tographic key built with entangled paths of a particle acceleration is locally equivalent to the effect of a grav- 3 itational field and is one of the milestones of General affected by the t phase effect [2]. The phase factor orig- Relativity and related to the paradox of a free falling ra- inates off-diagonal terms that colour the white noise ex- pected from a perfect key. In the simulation we assumed diating charged particle in a gravitational field [76]. In 2 the weak gravity limit one can state that the motion of a neutron with gravitational acceleration g = 9.8m/s , a point-like test particle in a uniform gravitational field distance of the two paths d = 10m and 100 time steps with acceleration g is indistinguishable from that in with with equal length. A deeper discussion about the coloring acceleration −g in a region where gravity is null. of the white noise representing the ideal cryptographic Following [2], an entangled pair of particles, 1 and 2, key due to the fluctuations of the gravitational field and is set in a superposition of two states, where in the first the signal detection via the analysis of the stochastic the particle 1 is freely falling in a gravitational field and noise is reported in the supplementary material. in the other particle 2 is static in the same gravitational As this effect is supposed to be detectable by using par- ticles with masses of the order of a millionth of a Planck field. The two different paths experience a phase factor −14 on the order of t3. A quantum cryptographic key can be mass (10 kg) [1, 3, 4], then only one neutron pair on a bunch of ∼ 106 neutrons would be able to give a signal built from the outcome of the interference between the 3 two paths traveled by 1 and 2 as in the Walborn quantum to reveal the t phase factor. If one, instead, uses in- eraser [55]. From this, the phase difference between the frared photons with wavelength λ = 1µm the gain factor two paths for e.g. a photon becomes would drop down of ∼ 8 orders of magnitude. The im- mediate advantage of this setup, including the sub-shot 2πg  1  noise sensitivity due to entanglement, is in the possibil- δφ = dt − gt3 (8) cλ 6 ity of controlling and measuring the effect of the t3 term 5 in two different particles of an entangled pair in two dif- represented by a perfect white noise. Quantum gravity ferent dynamical situations, as already explained in the fluctuations, gravitational waves and deviations from the text. The use of mesoscopic particles is mandatory to Minkowski spacetime, introduce additional phase terms reveal LEQG fluctuations through the t3 term. In fact, that decohere the entangled pairs used to build the quan- from the by analysis of the interferometric patterns of tum cryptographic key, with the result of coloring the the farthest quasars generated by the Hubble Space Tele- white noise revealing their presence [5, 6]. scope, photons did not put in evidence any clear effect of QG fluctuations cumulated even during their propa- gation from the farthest quasars [33, 34]. In addition to IV. THE STOCHASTIC COLOR OF LEQG that, the test of Bell’s inequalities from High- FLUCTUATIONS Quasars clearly confirm that the fluctuations caused by QG fluctuations are almost negligible [80]: statistically Low Energy Quantum Gravity (LEQG) fluctuations significant violations of the inequalities with 9.3 standard may give a way to detect the nontrivial topology with deviations were observed. The use of fullerene molecules compactified spatial dimensions [2, 3]. Many different ap- (C60 -C70) [81, 82] would dramatically improve of 3 or- proaches to QG describe different models of “fuzziness” ders of magnitude the sensitivity of the proposed ideal of spacetime expressed as low energy deformed disper- experiment as, from our simulations, one pair over ∼ 103 sion relationships of the spatial distance r between two of entangled pairs of molecules would reveal the grainy events for a given energy value E, namely, σr ∼ Lmin. structure of spacetime and the t3 effect. The experiment This fuzziness affects the propagation of quanta in space- can be in principle feasible with current quantum infor- time that would result affected by a characteristic colored mation technologies. noise. The amplitude spectral density associated to the displacement induced by spacetime fuzziness is given by L III. CONCLUSIONS S (f) ∼ √min (9) min f We proposed a thought experiment to detect low- and the relationship between the Root Mean Square energy Quantum Gravity fluctuations from the BMV ef- (RMS) value σ and S(f) is fect [1–4] with Quantum Optical Information Technolo- Z fmax gies. Two observers located in two different regions of σ2 = [S(f)]2 df. (10) the spacetime perform joint measurements on the shared 1/Tobs entangled states and build a string of 0’s and 1’s by measuring the detection coincidences. In a Minkowski In the more general case, the relativistic formulation flat spacetime the sequence of symbols in the string dis- of energy-momentum relationships result modified by the tribute like a pure white noise. Gravitational field fluctu- presence of low-energy quantum gravity effects ations de-synchronize the set of joint measurements be-   E α tween the two observers and change the distribution of p2 ' E2 1 + ξ (11) E “0” ’s and “1” ’s in the string with the result of col- QG oring the white noise. The Bose-Marletto-Vedral effect where α and ξ are the two parameters that describe at the is a promising key for quantum gravity phenomenology first order the model of quantum spacetime fluctuations. and these effects can be revealed with present-day quan- EQG is the scale of QG, one expects that those quan- tum technologies through the measure of the t3 phase tum effects become observable. The three main classes term that colors progressively the white noise of an ideal of models of QG are obtained by varying ξ and α. In quantum cryptographic key (see Fig. 1) built by using the Random walk model, α = 1/2, the random per- mesoscopic quanta such as fullerene molecules, with the turbations of space-time add incoherently with a square caveats in the building of a future real experiment in the root dependence [83] (or with some other more general laboratory that C60 − C70 molecules are not point-like stochastic process [20, 21]). The value α = 2/3, instead, particles. From our numerical simulations, in the most describes spacetime foams consistent with Wheeler’s and ideal case, we find that one entangled pair of molecules Beckenstein-Hawking’s holographic principle[84–86] and over 103 could ideally reveal the searched quantum grav- with entropy. Finally, α = 1 describes the ity effects. standard model of Loop QG with the Planck time as characteristic time of the fluctuations [87–89]. 16 If EQG  EP lanck ∼ 10 Gev, LEQG effects should SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL affect the propagation of photons, and consequently their paths in the interferometer. The dispersion relationship Here we present the mathematical techniques to ana- on photon arrival times can be written as follows, lyze the coloring of the stochastic noise and signal de- s  2   α−1   tection. An ideal quantum cryptographic key is a ran- α + α Etyp Tobs σD ∼ , (12) dom sequence of uncorrelated symbols mathematically 2 EQG EQG 6 where Etyp is an energy scale that characterizes the phys- sis such as Hurst’s analysis [90, 91]. In 1968 Mandelbrot ical context that we are considering, and we suppose that and van Ness [92] and in 1969 Mandelbrot and Wallis [93] the spectrum of the noise produced by the device is con- linked this method to a particular class of self–similar sidered negligible in the ideal case. random processes, called Fractional Brownian Motions In this case the stochastic process characterizing the (FBMs) [94, 95]. From this point of view, the behavior behavior of a quantum state propagating in spacetime caused by the spacetime fluctuations on both the time se- has a distribution which is a simple white noise with a ries, obtained from the markovian process generated by spectral density amplitude dependent on the frequency the interferometer’s setup, can be modeled by a discrete −1 S(f) √∼ f . The (RMS) is a function of the observation version of a FBM with index β ∈ (0, 1], 1/3 time Tobs. When the deviation σD ∼ T , the spectral −5/6 density becomes S(f) ∼ f thus affecting the value of B (t) − B (t − 1) = the correlation parameter α. β/2 β/2 ( n n−β/2 X Let hµν be a linearized three-dimensional metric per- = iβ/2−0.5ξ + turbation. The three-dimensional interval σ between Γ(β/2 + 0.5) [1+n(M+t)−i] i=1 the two observers can be expanded at the first order  2 n(M−1) as σ0 + σ1 + O(hµν ) that is, following Ref. [16], σ = X  + ((n + i)β/2−0.5 − iβ/2−0.5ξ 1 [(r + ∆t)2 − r2] ≈ r∆t. The influence of the compactifi- [1+n(M−1+t)−i] 2  cation of extra dimensions on the propagation of the light i=1 is given as a function of the paths traveled by the photons along their geodesics r = a−b and of a dimensionless pa- where ξi is the set of gaussian random variables with q 2ζ(3)G variance 1 and mean 0, M is the step, n the number of rameter  = r/L, which is ∆t ≈ 4  ≈ t , where π pl records, and β/2 the correlation parameter. Depending tpl is the Planck time, ζ(3) is Riemann’s zeta function on the value of H found, the behavior of the random and G4 = 1 is the Newton’s constant in 4 dimensions, in 0 fluctuations can be modeled by Wiener stochastic pro- natural units. In the rescaled time t the string is again cesses or, more specifically, by Fractional Brownian Mo- represented by an uncorrelated Markovian process with tions (FBM). In dynamical systems, H characterizes the null correlation if α = 1. stochastic memory in time of the process. Hurst expo- nents H > 1/2 indicate the persistence in time of the stochastic process, whereas exponents H < 1/2 indicate V. SIGNAL DETECTION VIA STOCHASTIC anti-persistence, i.e., past trends would tend to reverse NOISE ANALYSIS in the future. An exponent H = 1/2 would represent random uncorrelated behaviors with no stochastic mem- The effect caused by gravitational fluctuations is very ory in time, described by a classical Brownian motion, small, and the only way the experimenter has to give evi- related to the pure white noise [96]. Since FBMs possess dence to them, either stochastic or deterministic, such as self-similarity, they can also be also easily studied with a plane wave, is to accumulate progressively in a string the wavelet analysis [97–99]. By definition, the power of “0” ’s and “1” ’s the result of their joint measure- spectrum of the stochastic noise for LEQG effects is given ments performed on the shared quantum states. Instead by the parameter α. The power spectrum of FBM is de- of looking inside each single q-bit and calculating for each fined by the parameter β. The power spectrum of a FBM element in the string the probability of a q-bit mismatch, obeys a power law S(ω) ∼ c/ωα for large frequencies ω one should consider to analyze instead the color of the of the Fourier transform of a FBM [96]. The relationship noise. Each fluctuation will modify the shape of the ran- between the two parameters α and β is quite straightfor- dom key away from the pure white noise. For more de- ward, by directly replacing α → β/2, can put in evidence tails about the detection of stochastic background and the noise generated by a specific model of Quantum Grav- the problem of noise in the experiment see Ref. [6]. To ity and determine the shape of spacetime foam. give an example, the string of data record can be modeled We have seen that the time indetermination in the pho- as the superposition between a pure markovian process ton arrival time is unavoidably affected by the photon and a stochastic background noise or a deterministic per- coherence length, that would require shorter and shorter turbation. Off-power terms given by the cross-correlation to reduce ∆W . For this reason, instead of of the two strings of A and B would reveal a deterministic considering the variations of very short time intervals component (see Fig.1 in Ref. [6]). caused by gravitational field fluctuations either to label If the perturbing term is a stochastic noise, instead, the result of each measurement on quantum states or to one should consider to perform a correlation analysis of directly estimate the gravitational field fluctuation, the the strings. A practical way to handle time series made experimenter can instead use a with discrete data and characterize their statistical be- and try to detect the GW by measuring the deformation havior away from the white noise is Hurst’s analysis and in the interferometer’s arms due to GWs or LEQG ef- fractal geometry. The fractal dimension of the noise, fects. Here photons are entangled in a superposition of namely the color is determined by a time series analy- states |sip and |lip characterized by having chosen either 7 the short (s) or long (l) paths in the interferometer [100]. short and long paths, |si|si and |li|li, respectively, dis- tribute as a FBM and reveals the quantum properties of 1  iφ  the spacetime as already discussed. |Ψi = √ |siA|siB + e |liA|liB (13) 2 Based on the results obtained from [33, 34], we can See also [64] for a deeper insight. easily infer that, if the sensitivity needed to detect those A coincidence detection is achieved when both photons effects must be extremely high, the quantum states will pass through the short arm |si or the long one |li. En- be preserved for billions of light years within the errors tangled photons distribute along three peaks, that corre- dictated by the current technology present in the Hub- spond to a superposition of short/short, short/long and ble Space Telescope. Quasars distant more than 8 bil- long/long pahts, respectively. By measuring the number lions of light years did not show any blurring caused by of photons present in each of the paths, one can eas- LEQG effects. From these results one obtains an up- ily build a purely markovian process associated to the per limit to the phase factor imposed by QG fluctua- interferometer’s output. The time-delay effect of a gravi- tions on cosmological distances which is on the order of 2 1 −13 tational wave δt ' {h0αh0β −hαβ(1+h00)} results δφ ∼ 2.15 × 10 if Alice is on the Earth and Bob on 1+h00 on a stretching of one or both the interferometer’s arms Mars, being the upper limit found for α = 0.67. Fluctua-   2 h0αh0β α β tions at the Planck scale do not cumulate and fix a value of a quantity δl ' − hαβ dx dx that affect 1+h00 δφ ∼ 6.15 × 10−17. the basis {|si, |li} in which photons are entangled, mov- ing away photons from their initial location, with the Acknowledgments result of coloring the stochastic markovian process. The One of us, FT, gratefully acknowledges ZKM and Peter difference between the number of coincidences along the Weibel for the financial support.

[1] Bose S., Mazumdar A., Morley G. W., Ulbricht H., at a mass of 125 GeV with the CMS experiment at the Toro˜sM., Paternostro M., et al. “Spin entanglement LHC”, Physics Letters B, 716, 30-61 (2012). witness for quantum gravity.” Phys Rev Lett. 119 [15] Amelino-Camelia, G., Ellis, J., Mavromatos, N.E., 240401 (2017). Nanopoulos D.V. and Sarkar, S., “Tests of quantum [2] Marletto, C. and Vedral, V., “On the testability of gravity from observations of γ-ray bursts,” Nature 398, the equivalence principle as a gauge principle de- 216 (1999). tecting the gravitational t3 phase” ArXiv e-print [16] H. Yu, H. and Ford, L.H., “Light-cone fluctuations in arXiv:2004.11616v1 [quant-ph] (2020). flat with nontrivial topology,” Phys. Rev. D [3] Christodoulou, M. and Rovelli, C., “On the possibility 60, 084023 (1999). of laboratory evidence for quantum superposition of ge- [17] Amelino-Camelia, G., “Gravity-wave interferometers as ometries”, Physics Letters B 792, 64–68 (2019). probes of a low-energy effective quantum gravity,” Phys. [4] Christodoulou, M. and Rovelli, C., “On the Possibility Rev. D 62 , 024015 (2000). of Experimental Detection of the Discreteness of Time”, [18] Amelino–Camelia G., “Limits on the measurability of Frontiers in Physics, 8, 207 (2020). space-time distances in (the semiclassical approximation [5] Tamburini, F., Basset, B.A. and Ungarelli C., “Detec- of) Quantum Gravity,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 9, 3415- tion of gravitational waves with quantum encryption 3422 (1994). technology,” ArXiv e-print: gr-qc/0006106 (2000). [19] H. Yu, H. and Ford, L.H., “Lightcone fluctuations in [6] Tamburini, F., Basset, B.A and Ungarelli C., “Detect- quantum gravity and extra dimensions,” Phys . Lett. B ing gravitational waves using entangled photon states,” 496, 107 (2000). Physical Review A 78, 012114 (2008). [20] Amelino–Camelia G., “Are we at the dawn of quantum- [7] Mukhi, S., String theory: a perspective over the last 25 gravity phenomenology?,” Lect.Notes Phys., 541, 1- 49, years, Class. Quant. Grav. 28 153001 (2011). ArXiv e-print gr-qc/9910089 (2000). [8] Duff, M. J., M-Theory (the Theory Formerly Known as [21] Ng Y.J. and van Dam H., “Limit to Space-Time mea- Strings) Int.J.Mod.Phys. A11, 5623-5642 (1996). surement,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A, 9, 04, 335-340 (1994). [9] Kakushadze, Z. and Henry Tye, S.-H., Brane World, [22] Ng Y. J., “Selected topics in Planck-Scale physics,” Nucl.Phys. B 548, 180-204 (1999). Modern Phys. Lett. A, 18, 16, pp. 1073-1097 (2003). [10] Rovelli, C. Loop Quantum Gravity. Living Rev. Relativ. [23] Ragazzoni, R., Turatto, M. and Gaessler, W., “Lack of 11, 5, doi:10.12942/lrr-2008-5 (2008). observational evidence for quantum structure of space- [11] Wheeler, J. A., “Geons”, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 (1955). time at Plank scales,” ApJL, 587, L1-L4 (2003). [12] St¨ocker, H., Koch, B., & Bleicher, M., “An introduc- [24] The LIGO Scientific Collaboration and the Virgo tion to mini black holes at LHC.”, Brazilian Journal of Collaboration, “An Upper Limit on the Am- Physics, 37(2c), 836-839 (2007). plitude of Stochastic Gravitational-Wave Back- [13] P.A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), “The Review ground of Cosmological Origin”, document of Particle Physics (2020)”, to be published in Prog. number LIGO-P080099-12-Z available at url Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 083C01 (2020). https://dcc.ligo.org/public/0001/P080099/003/S5stoch- [14] The CMS Collaboration, “Observation of a new boson 1.pdf (2009). 8

[25] Caprini, C., “Stochastic background of gravita- [45] LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration, tional waves from cosmological sources”, Journal of ”GW151226: Observation of Gravitational Waves from Physics: Conference Series 610, 012004, 10th Inter- a 22-Solar-Mass Coalescence”. Phys- national LISA Symposium (LISAX) doi:10.1088/1742- ical Review Letters. 116 (24): 241103. ArXiv e-print 6596/610/1/012004 (2015). arXiv:1606.04855 (2016). [26] Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., Rosen, N., “Can Quantum- [46] Abbott, B. P; Abbott, et al., ”GW170104: Observa- Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Consid- tion of a 50-Solar-Mass Binary Black Hole Coalescence ered Complete?” Phys. Rev., 47, 777–780 (1935). at Redshift 0.2”. . 118 (22): [27] Horodecki, R., Horodecki, P., Horodecki, M., Horodecki, 221101. arXiv:1706.01812. (2017). K. “Quantum entanglement”, Reviews of Modern [47] Abbott BP, et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration & Physics, 81, 865 (2009). Virgo Collaboration), “GW170817: Observation of [28] Einstein, A.; Rosen, N. “The Particle Problem in the Gravitational Waves from a Binary Inspi- General ”, Phys. Rev., 48, 73–77 ral.”, Physical Review Letters. 119 (16): 161101. ArXiv (1935). e-print arXiv:1710.05832 (2017). [29] Maldacena, J. “The large N limit of superconformal field [48] LIGO Scientific Collaboration; Virgo Collaboration, theories and supergravity”, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys., 2, “Search for Gravitational Waves from Low Mass Com- 231 (1998). pact Binary Coalescence in LIGO’s Sixth Science Run [30] Susskind, L., “Copenhagen vs Everett, Teleportation, and Virgo’s Science Runs 2 and 3”. Physical Review D. and ER = EPR”, Fortsch. Phys., 64, 551–564 (2016). 85 (8): 082002. ArXiv e-print arXiv:1111.7314 (2012). [31] van Raamsdonk, M., “Building up space–time with [49] Baker J. et al. in Science case document, “LISA: Probing quantum entangletment” Gen. Relativ. Gravit., 42, the Universe with Gravitational Waves”, LISA-LIST- 2323–2329 (2010). RP-436 (2007). [32] Tamburini, F., and Licata, I., “General Relativistic [50] Recent updates can be found in LISA’s official website, Wormhole Connections from Planck-Scales and the ER http://lisa.nasa.gov (2020). = EPR Conjecture”, Entropy 2020, 22(1), 3; (2020). [51] Information and updates about the [33] Steinbring, E., “Are high-redshift quasars blurry?,” project can be found at http://www.et-gw.eu (2020). ApJ, 655, 714-717 (2007). [52] Lyons, T.T., Regehr, M. W., and Raab, F. J., “Shot [34] Tamburini, F., Cuofano, C., Della Valle, M., and noise in gravitational-wave detectors with Fabry-Perot Gilmozzi, R., “No quantum gravity signature from the arms”, Applied Optics 39, 6761-6770 (2000). farthest quasars” A&A 533, A71 (2011). [53] The LIGO Scientific Collaboration (LSC), “Enhancing [35] Bjerrum-Bohr, N.E.J., Holstein, B.R., Plant´e,L. and the sensitivity of the LIGO gravitational wave detector Vanhove, P., “-Photon Scattering”, Phys. Rev. by using ”, Nature Photonics 7, D 91, 064008 (2015). 613-619 (2013). [36] Athira B S, Susobhan Mandal, Subhashish Baner- [54] Weinberg, S., Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles jee, “Characteristics of interaction between Gravitons and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity, and Photons”, ArXiv e-print arXiv:2001.10196 [gr-qc] John Wiley and Sons, San Francisco, USA (1972). (2020). [55] Tamburini, F., de Matos, C.J., Perdigues Armen- [37] Hogan, C.J., “Measurement of quantum fluctuations in gol, J.M. and Colacino, C.N., “Detecting gravitational geometry,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 104031 (2008). waves with a heralded-photon Quantum Eraser,” NCB, [38] Smolyaninov, I.I., “Level of holographic noise in inter- DOI 10.1393/ncb/i2009-10776-8 (2009). ferometry,” Phys. Rev. D 79, 087503 (2009). [56] Hyllus, P., G¨uhne,O. and Smerzi, A., “Not all pure [39] De Angelis, A., and Pimenta, M., “Introduction entangled states are useful for sub shot-noise interfer- to particle and astroparticle physics (multimessen- ometry”, Physical Review A 82, 012337 (2010). ger astronomy and its particle physics foundations)”, [57] Polyakov, S. V. and Migdall, A. L., “Quantum radiom- Springer, DOI:10.1007/978-3-319-78181-5, ISBN 978-3- etry”, Journal of Modern Optics, 56, 1045-1052 (2009). 319-78181-5 (2018). [58] Giovannetti, V., Lloyd, S. and Maccone, L., “Ad- [40] Bartos, I. and Kowalski, M., “Multimessenger Astron- vances in ”, Nature Photonics 5, omy”, IOP Publishing, DOI:10.1088/978-0-7503-1369-8 222 (2011). (2017). [59] Phelan, D., Ryan, D. and Shearer, A. (eds.), “High [41] Branchesi, M., “Multi-messenger astronomy: gravita- time resolution astrophysics”, Astrophysics and Space tional waves, , photons, and cosmic rays”, Science Library, Springer, The Netherlands, Dordrecht Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 718, 022004, (2008). DOI:10.1088/1742-6596/718/2/022004 (2016). [60] Dravins, D., et al., “QUANTUM OPTICS INSTRU- [42] Abramovici, A., et al., “LIGO: The Interferome- MENTATION FOR ASTRONOMY”, OWL Instrument ter Gravitational-Wave Observatory,” Science 256, 325 Concept Study, OWL-CSR-ESO-00000-0162, available (1992). at url: https://www.eso.org/sci/facilities/eelt/ [43] Abbott, B. et al., (The LIGO Scientific Collaboration), owl/Files/publications/OWL-CSR-ESO-00000-0162_ “LIGO: The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-wave iss1.pdf (2005). Observatory,” Rep. Prog. Phys. 72 076901 (2009). [61] Tamburini, F., “Aspects of Gravitation in Astrophysics: [44] Abbott BP, et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and from Accretion Disks to Quantum Astronomy”, LAP Virgo Collaboration) (2016). ”Observation of Gravita- LAMBERT Academic Publishing (2011). tional Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger”. Phys- [62] Marais A et al., “The future of quantum biology”, J. R. ical Review Letters. 116 (6): 061102. ArXiv e-print Soc. Interface 15 20180640 (2018). arXiv:1602.03837 (2016). [63] Lemos, G. B., Borish, V. , Cole, G. D., Ramelow, S., 9

Lapkiewicz, R., and Zeilinger, A., “Quantum Imaging 080403 (2018). with Undetected Photons”, Nature, vol. 512, 409–412 [81] Rohlfing, E. A., Cox, D. M., Kaldor, A., “Produc- (2014). tion and characterization of supersonic carbon clus- [64] Bouwmeester, D., Ekert, A., Zeilinger, A. (Eds.) ter beams” Journal of Chemical Physics. 81 (7), 3322 “The Physics of Quantum Information”, Springer: (1984). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, ISBN 978-3-642-08607-6 [82] Zeilinger A., “Recent advances in teleportation of entan- (2000). glement and in fullerene interference”, In: Bigelow N.P., [65] Bertlmann, R., Zeilinger, A. (Eds.) “Quantum Eberly J.H., Stroud C.R., Walmsley I.A. (eds) Coher- [Un]Speakables, from Bell to Quantum Information”, ence and Quantum Optics VIII. Springer, Boston, MA Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, ISBN 978-3- (2003). 662-05032-3 (2002). [83] Ng, J.Y., Christiansen, W.A., and van Dam, H., “Prob- [66] Bertlmann, R., Zeilinger, A. (Eds.) “Quantum ing Planck-Scale Physics with Extragalactic Sources?”, [Un]Speakables II”, Springer Nature Switzerland AG: ApJL, 591, L87-L89 (2003). Basel, Switzerland, ISBN 978-3-319-38987-5 (2017). [84] `t Hooft, G., “Dimensional Reduction in Quantum [67] Castelletto, S., and Scholten, R.E., “Heralded single Gravity”, Contribution to: Conference on Highlights photon sources: a route towards quantum communica- of Particle and Condensed Matter Physics (SALAM- tion technology and photon standards”, Eur. Phys. J. FEST), Conf.Proc.C 930308, 284-296, World Scientific Appl. Phys. 41, 181–194 (2008). Co., Singapore, ArXiv e-print: gr-qc/9310026 (1993). [68] Migdall, A., Polyakov, S., Fan. J. and Bienfang. J., [85] Susskind, L., “The world as a hologram”, J. Math. Phys. “Single-Photon Generation and Detection”, Volume 45 36, 6377 (1995). 1st Edition Physics and Applications, Academic Press [86] Maldacena, J., “The Large N Limit of Superconformal Elsevier (2013). Field Theories and Supergravity”, Adv. Theor. Math. [69] Duarte, F. J., “Fundamentals of Quantum Entangle- Phys., 2, 231-252 (1998). ArXiv e-print hep-th/9711200. ment”, IOP Series in Coherent Sources and Applica- [87] Ng Y.J., van Dam H., “Measuring the Foaminess tions, IOP Publishing, Bristol, UK (2019). of Space-Time with Gravity-Wave Interferometers”, [70] Zhang, X., Xu, C. & Ren, Z., “High fidelity heralded Found. Phys., 30, 795-805 (2000). single-photon source using cavity quantum electrody- [88] Ng Y. J., Lee, D.-S., Oh, M. C. van Dam, H., “Energy- namics”, Sci Rep 8, 3140 (2018). momentum uncertainties as possible origin of threshold [71] Razavi, M., S¨ollner,I., Bocquillon, E., Couteau, C., anomalies in UHECR and TeV-γ events”, Phys. Lett. Laflamme, R. and Weihs, G., “Characterizing heralded B, 507, 236-240 (2001). single-photon sources with imperfect measurement de- [89] Rovelli, C., Quantum Gravity, (Cambridge University vices”, Journal of Physics B: Atomic, Molecular and Press, UK, 2004). Optical Physics, 42 (2009). [90] Hurst, H.E., “Long term storage capacity of reservoirs”, [72] Graffitti, F., Kelly-Massicotte, J., Fedrizzi, J., and Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 116, 770 (1951). Bra´nczyk,A. M., “Design considerations for high-purity [91] Hurst, H. E., Black, R. and Sinaika, Y. M., Long-Term heralded single-photon sources”, Phys. Rev. A 98, Storage in Reservoirs: An Experimental Study, Consta- 053811 (2018). ble, London, (1965). [73] Maggiore, M., “Gravitational Wave Experiments and [92] Mandelbrot, B.B. and van Ness, J. W., “Fractional Early Universe Cosmology,” Phys. Rep., 331, 283-367, Brownian motions, fractional noises and applications”, ArXiv e-print gr-qc/9909001 (2000). SIAM (Soc. Ind. Appl. Math.) Rev. 10, 422 (1968). [74] Kok, P. and Yurtsever, U., “Gravitational decoherence,” [93] Mandelbrot, B.B. and Wallis, J. R., “Some long-run Phys. Rev. D, 68, 085006 (2003). properties of geophysical records”, Water Resources [75] Biagini, F., Hu, Y., Øksendal, B., Zhang, T., “Stochas- Res. 5, 321 (1969). tic Calculus for Fractional Brownian Motion and Appli- [94] Lowen, S. B., Methodology and Computing in Applied cations”, Springer London, UK (2008). Probability 1, 4, 445-456, Springer, the Netherlands [76] Tamburini, F., M. De Laurentis and Licata, I., “Radia- (1999). tion from charged particles due to explicit symmetry [95] Gao, J. B., Yinhe Cao and Lee. J.M., “Principal Com- breaking in a gravitational field” International Jour- ponent Analysis of 1/fα Noise”, Phys. Lett. A, 314, 392 nal of Geometric Methods in Modern PhysicsVol. 15, (2003). 1850122 (2018). [96] Feder, J., Fractals, Plenum Press, NY, USA, (1988). [77] Wold H., “A Study in the Analysis of Stationary Time [97] Chui C.K., An Introduction to Wavelets, Academic Series”, 2 edn. Almqvist & Wiksell, Uppsala, Sweden Press Inc., San Diego, USA (1992). (1954). [98] Gill, A. G., and Henriksen, R. N., “A first use of [78] Tamburini, F., Thid´e,B. and Della Valle, M., “Measure- wavelet analysis for molecular clouds”, ApJ, 365, L27– ment of the spin of the M87 black hole from its observed L30 (1990). twisted light”, MNRAS Letters 492, L22 (2019). [99] Simonsen, I., Hansen, A. and Magnar Nes, O., “De- [79] de B Harrington, P., Urbas, A., Tandler, P. J., “Two- termination of the Hurst exponent by use of wavelet dimensional correlation analysis”, Chemometrics and transforms”, Phys. Rev. E, 58, 2779 (1998). Intelligent Laboratory Systems, 50, 149-174 (2000). [100] W. Tittel, J. Brendel, H. Zbinden and N. Gisin, “Quan- [80] Rauch, D., Handsteiner, J., Hochrainer, A., Gallic- tum Cryptography Using Entangled Photons in Energy- chio, J., Friedman, A.S., Leung, C., et al., “Cosmic Time Bell States”, Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 4737 - 4740 Bell Test using Random Measurement Settings from (2000). High-Redshift Quasars”, Physical Review Letters 121,