Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1901.08999

Reply to comment on "Interaction of a BEC with a gravitational wave"

Ralf Schützhold

Published Jan 25, 2019• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

This reply contains a brief response to the comment by R. Howl, D. Rätzel, and I. Fuentes [arXiv:1811.10306]
DOI
10.48550/arxiv.1901.08999

Related papers

Reply to Comment on "Space-Time Crystals of Trapped Ions"

Tongcang Li, Zhexuan Gong, Zhang‐qi Yin +5 more

This is a reply to the comment from Patrick Bruno (arXiv:1211.4792) on our paper (Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 163001 (2012)).

arXiv:1212.6959•Dec 31, 2012•3 citations

Reply to Comment on "Contextuality in bosonic bunching"

Paweł Kurzyński, Akihito Soeda, Jayne E. Thompson +1 more

This is a reply to arXiv:1409.7513 [Phys. Rev. Lett. 113, 138901 (2014)].

arXiv:1409.8025•Sep 29, 2014•0 citations

Li et al. Reply:

Xin Li, Sooran Kim, Xi Chen +1 more

This Reply to preceding Comment of arXiv:1909.09867 shows why the statements in the Comment are misleading. We point out that our physical picture and theirs are fundamentally different, therefore the claim of using their correlation to include ours shows a very limited physical relevance, which instead may impede the precise understanding of either of the two pictures.

arXiv:2003.03992•Physical Review Letters•Mar 12, 2020•13 citations

Comment on "Interaction of a Bose-Einstein condensate with a gravitational wave"

Richard Howl, Dennis Rätzel, Ivette Fuentes

A gravitational-wave (GW) detector that utilizes the phononic excitations of a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) has recently been proposed [NJP 16, 085003 (2014)]. A subsequent and independent study, [arXiv:1807.07046v1], has suggested an alternative GW detection scheme that also uses phonons of a BEC but which was found to be many orders of magnitude away from being feasible. Here we make clear that the two proposed schemes are very different and that the conclusions of [arXiv:1807.07046v1] do not apply to the original proposal [NJP 16, 085003 (2014)].

arXiv:1811.10306•Nov 26, 2018•2 citations

Comment on ‘‘Transition between particle behavior and wave behavior,’’ by F. Bardou [Am. J. Phys. 59, 458–461 (1991)]

Francesco Gonella

American Journal of Physics•Nov 1, 1992•0 citations

Comment on Classical-Gravity--Quantum-Matter Claims About Gravity-Mediated Entanglement

Mikołaj Sienicki, Krzysztof Sienicki

A recent paper by Aziz and Howl (Nature 2025) argues that, once quantum matter is described at the level of quantum field theory and coupled to a classical gravitational field, higher order processes can generate entanglement between two spatially separated masses. A contemporaneous critical note (Marletto, Oppenheim, Vedral, Wilson, arXiv:2511.07348v1) shows that, in the actual nonrelativistic limit employed there, the interaction becomes ultra local, the total unitary factorizes, and no entanglement is generated from a product input. In this comment we (i) restate the core point of that critique, (ii) give a channel theoretic reformulation that makes the conclusion model independent, and (iii) clarify the distinction between activation of entanglement in already quantum matter and genuine mediation of entanglement by a classical field. Once these clarifications are in place, the standard BMV inference that observation of gravity mediated entanglement strongly indicates nonclassical gravitational degrees of freedom remains intact.

quant-pharXiv:2511.20717•Nov 26, 2025•0 citations
A gravitational-wave (GW) detector that utilizes the phononic excitations of a Bose-Einstein condensate (BEC) has recently been proposed [NJP 16, 085003 (2014)]. A subsequent and independent study, [arXiv:1807.07046v1], has suggested an alternative GW detection scheme that also uses phonons of a BEC but which was found to be many orders of magnitude away from being feasible. Here we make clear that the two proposed schemes are very different and that the conclusions of [arXiv:1807.07046v1] do not apply to the original proposal [NJP 16, 085003 (2014)].
A recent paper by Aziz and Howl (Nature 2025) argues that, once quantum matter is described at the level of quantum field theory and coupled to a classical gravitational field, higher order processes can generate entanglement between two spatially separated masses. A contemporaneous critical note (Marletto, Oppenheim, Vedral, Wilson, arXiv:2511.07348v1) shows that, in the actual nonrelativistic limit employed there, the interaction becomes ultra local, the total unitary factorizes, and no entanglement is generated from a product input. In this comment we (i) restate the core point of that critique, (ii) give a channel theoretic reformulation that makes the conclusion model independent, and (iii) clarify the distinction between activation of entanglement in already quantum matter and genuine mediation of entanglement by a classical field. Once these clarifications are in place, the standard BMV inference that observation of gravity mediated entanglement strongly indicates nonclassical gravitational degrees of freedom remains intact.