arXiv:2106.13305v1 [quant-ph] 24 Jun 2021
Giovanni Di Bartolomeo,1,∗ Matteo Carlesso,2, 3, 4 and Angelo Bassi3, 4
1Department of Physics, University of Rome ”La Sapienza”, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Rome, Italy
2Centre for Theoretical Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics,
School of Mathematics and Physics, Queens University, Belfast BT7 1NN, United Kingdom
3Department of Physics, University of Trieste, Strada Costiera 11, 34151 Trieste, Italy
4Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare, Trieste Section, Via Valerio 2, 34127 Trieste, Italy (Dated: June 28, 2021)
The models of Kafri, Taylor, and Milburn and of Tilloy and Diosi describe the gravitational interaction through a continuous measurement and feedback protocol. In such a way, although they consider gravity classical, they can reconstruct the proper quantum gravitational interaction at the level of the master equation for the statistical operator. In this procedure, the price to pay is having decoherence effects leading to an asymptotic energy divergence. One does not expect the latter in isolated systems. Here, we propose a dissipative generalization of these models, where we tackle such a problem. We show that, in these generalizations, in the long time limit, the system thermalizes to an effective temperature, thus avoiding the energy divergence.
I. INTRODUCTION
The unification of the quantum theory with general relativity is still an open problem. The two theories well perform in their respective realms, yet one still needs to bridge an important gap for arriving at a unique the- ory. While there are several approaches trying quantize gravity [1–3], such as string theory [4], loop quantum gravity [5] or spin foam quantum gravity [6], a clear em- pirical evidence that gravity should be treated quantum mechanically is still lacking [7–27]. The other option is to move closer to the general relativity realm, gravitizing quantum mechanics [28–33]. In the spirit of this latter approach, some proposed that gravity should be funda- mentally classical and that the quantum dynamics should accommodate it [34–38]. The price to pay for a dynamics in such a framework is the appearance in the Schr¨odinger equation of non-linear and stochastic terms, which lead to decoherence, and thus to the rupture of the energy con- servation of an isolated system [39–43]. While deviations from quantum mechanics are expected when moving to- ward the realm of general relativity, energy conservation is something one would want to maintain also in an hy- brid model.
Here we analyze two models developing a continuous measurement and feedback protocol to include gravity in the quantum framework. Those models are the Kafri, Taylor and Milburn (KTM) [41] and the Tilloy-Diosi (TD) model [42]. Both feature a violation of energy conservation due to this protocol. Here, we delve into the possibility of constructing a dissipative generaliza- tion of these two models. Under this perspective, the gravitationally-induced stochastic noise acts in an iso- lated system as a dissipative medium, similarly as a ther- mal bath does in a typical open quantum system. In par- ticular, the energy of the system will reach an asymptotic
∗Electronic address: [email protected]
value.
II. THE KTM MODEL
For setting the contest of the problem, here we briefly introduce the KTM model highlighting the relevant fea- tures. The model consider a one-dimensional system composed of two masses m1 and m2, which are harmon- ically trapped at frequencies ω1 and ω2 and have a dis- tance d, and interact gravitationaly. Assuming that the quantum fluctuations in position |ˆx1− ˆx2|, being ˆxi the position operator of the i-th particle, are small compared with d, one can approximate the Newtonian potential to the second order in ˆx1− ˆx2. With a suitable choice of the coordinates [41], the Hamiltonian reads
H = ˆˆ H0+ ˆHgrav, (1) where ˆH0=P2
k=1(2mpˆ2kk +21mkΩ2kxˆ2k) and
Hˆgrav= K ˆx1xˆ2, (2) with Ω2k = ω2k− K/mk and we defined K = 2Gm1m2/d3 where G is the gravitational constant.
Now, the quantum interaction between the two masses embedded in ˆHgrav is substituted by a classical proto- col. The latter constituted by a continuous weak mea- surement of the positions ˆxk and a broadcast of the cor- responding measurement record rk through a classical channel. Such a broadcast is realized through a feedback dynamics, which is implemented by replacing ˆHgrav with a feedback Hamiltonian reading
Hˆfb= χ1r1xˆ2+ χ2r2xˆ1, (3) where the position operator of one mass is coupled to a classical stochastic measurement record of the position of the other. In particular, we define the measurement record as
rk = hˆxkit+ ~
√γk
dWk,t
dt , (4)
where we introduced the measurement information gain rates γk and the standard Wiener processes Wk,t, whose correlations read E[dWk,tdWl,s] = δk,lδ(t − s). Follow- ing the calculations, which are reported in detail in Ap- pendixA, one arrives at the KTM master equation [41]
d
dtρˆt= −i
~[ ˆH0+ K ˆx1xˆ2, ˆρt] − K 2~
2
X
k=1
[ˆxk, [ˆxk, ˆρt]], (5)
where we set mk= m and γk= γKTM, with
γKTM= 2~K. (6)
Equation (5) comprises two terms: the first is a von Neu- mann term, where the quantum gravitational interaction is reproduced, while the second is a decoherence term.
Among the predictions of Eq. (5), one has that the mean energy of the system increases linearly in time, eventu- ally diverging asymptotically. In particular, for a system of two identical masses m, the expectation value of the Hamiltonian in Eq. (1) reads
h ˆHit= ~K
m t. (7)
In this work we show how it is possible to modify the measurement and feedback protocol keeping the energy bounded at all times, while reproducing the correct quan- tum gravitational interaction in the von Neumann term of the master equation.
III. THE DISSIPATIVE KTM MODEL
To avoid the asymptotic divergence of the average en- ergy arising in the KTM model, we propose a dissipative generalization in analogy to that of the quantum Brown- ian model [44–52]. The latter model describes the motion of a massive harmonic oscillator under the influence of a thermal environment. When extending such a dynam- ics to two particles instead of one, having mass mk and frequency ωk, the corresponding master equation reads [44,53]
d
dtρ = −ˆ i
~[ ˆH, ˆρ] −
2
X
k=1
iλk
~ [ˆxk, {ˆpk, ˆρ}]
−
2
X
k=1
2λkmkkBT
~2 [ˆxk, [ˆxk, ˆρ]] −
2
X
k=1
λk
8mkkBT[ˆpk, [ˆpk, ˆρ]], (8) where λk are the dissipative constants and T is the tem- perature of the bath. In the high temperature limit the last term of Eq. (8) becomes negligible, correspondingly the asymptotic average energy of the system reads
h ˆHi∞= 2kBT. (9) Here, the system thermalizes to a finite energy, which is in agreement with the equipartition theorem in the
canonical statistical ensemble [54]. We underline that T in the canonical ensemble is a universal temperature, namely it does not depend on the specific properties of the system. Thus, when generalizing the KTM model to include dissipative features, one should aim at an asymp- totic energy which is independent from the specific prop- erties of the system. Conversely, such asymptotic value should be connected to the analogue of the temperature in the quantum Brownian motion.
We develop the dissipative effects in the KTM model by modifying the measurement and feedback protocol so that the corresponding master equation is similar to Eq. (8). Clearly, in this modificaton, we want to pre- serve the main properties of the original model, namely we want to recover the linearized gravitational interac- tion. This can be done by substituting the continuous measurement of ˆxk with that of the following operator
Aˆk= ˆxk+iαk
~ pˆk, (10)
where αk are real parameters to be determined. Con- versely, we do not modify the form of the feedback Hamil- tonian, which will continue to read as in Eq. (3), where now the measurement record reads
rk =1
2h ˆAk+ ˆA†kit+ ~
√γk
dWk,t
dt . (11)
This choice is twofold: we want to obtain the same dis- sipative term as that in Eq. (8), which depends on both position and momentum operators, and to mimick the gravitational Hamiltonian ˆHgrav. We notice that, since
1
2( ˆAk+ ˆA†k) = ˆxk, the feedback Hamiltonian and the mea- surement record are the same as in the KTM model, and thus the gravitational interaction is correctly reproduced.
With these choices for the measurement and feedback protocol, and by taking χ1 = χ2 = K, we straightfor- wardly arrive at the following master equation [cf. Ap- pendixA]:
d
dtρˆt= −i
~[ ˆH0′ + K ˆx1xˆ2, ˆρt] −
2
X
k=1
iγkαk
4~3 [ˆxk, {ˆpk, ˆρt}]
−
2
X
k,j=1 j6=k
γk
8~2 +K2 2γj
[ˆxk, [ˆxk, ˆρt]] −
2
X
k=1
γkα2k
8~4 [ˆpk, [ˆpk, ˆρt]]
+
2
X
k,j=1 j6=k
αjK
2~2 [ˆxk, [ˆpj, ˆρt]],
(12) where ˆH0′ = ˆH0+ ∆ ˆH0, with ∆ ˆH0=P2
k=1 γkαk
8~2 {ˆxk, ˆpk} being an addition to the Hamiltonian term deriving from the continuous measurement. We now compare Eq. (12) and Eq. (8). First, we notice that the effective Hamilto- nian in the first term of Eq. (12) comprises the quantum gravitational interaction as in the KTM master equation (5). Moreover, Eq. (12) displays three terms analogue to
those in Eq. (8), and which implement dissipation, dif- fusion in momentum and in position respectively. Con- versely to Eq. (8), Eq. (12) contains also its last term, which derives from the feedback mechanism and produces diffusion in position and momentum.
To verify that our modification can actually solve the energy divergence problem, we start by computing the asymptotic value of the average mean energy in the sim- ple case of γk= γKTM, mk = m and αk= α, which reads
h ˆHi∞= ~2
mα+αmω2
2 −αm2G
d3 +G2α3m5
~2d6 . (13) Details on the calculation are reported in Appendix B.
We notice that Eq. (13) depends on the specific features of the system, namely the mass m, the distance d and the frequency ω, and on the free parameter α of the model.
On the contrary, one would expect an expression free of such dependencies, as that in Eq. (9). A way to get rid of such dependence is to assume that α is suitably small and so be able to approximate Eq. (13) to its first term.
Then, by defining
α = m0
mα0, (14)
where m0 is a reference mass and α0 is a scaled free parameter, the asymptotic average energy becomes
h ˆHi∞= ~2 m0α0
, (15)
which is system independent. By comparing such an ex- pression with that in Eq. (9), we can define a temper- ature associated to the model and at which the system will eventually thermalize. This reads
Teff = ~2 2m0α0kB
. (16)
Thus, in light of the analogy with the quantum Brownian model, we can interpret the dynamics described by the dissipative KTM model as that of a system in contact with a thermal bath of temperature Teff. We now inquire what changes without making the choice γk = γKTM. In detail, we focus on the expression in Eq. (13) without such an assumption, which becomes
h ˆHi∞= ~2
2mα+8~4G2m3
γ2αd6 +αmω2
2 −αm2G
d3 +mα3γ2 16~4 .
(17) By choosing α = mm0α0, we remove the dependence on the mass of the first and third term of Eq. (17). Thus, in order to remove the dependencies on the mass and on the distance of the second term, we can choose for example γ = mm22
0d3γ0. However, in this way, the dependencies on the frequency in the third term and that on the mass and on the distance in the fourth and fifth term remain present. If the values of α and γ are both suitably small we can neglect the last three terms in Eq. (17) and find
h ˆHi∞= ~2 2m0α0
+4~4G2m30 γ20α0
. (18)
In such a way the effective temperature reads Teff= ~2
4m0α0kB
+2~2G2m30 γ02α0kB
. (19)
We notice that Eq. (19) depends explicitly on the grav- itational constant G unlike Eq. (16). The first term of Eq. (19) is due to the measurement process, while the second term is due to the feedback mechanism. Thus, by comparing Eq. (19) with Eq. (16) is clear that the effect of the choice γk= γKTM is to makes the contributions of the measurement and of the feedback indistinguishable.
IV. THE TD MODEL AND ITS DISSIPATIVE GENERALIZATION
The second model we consider is the Tilloy-Diosi (TD) model [42]. Similarly as for the KTM model, also here one has a weak continuous measurement and the sub- sequent classical broadcast of the corresponding mea- surement record, which will modify the system dynamics through a feedback Hamiltonian. The conceptual differ- ence lies in the way gravity is implemented [43]. While in the KTM model one approximate the gravitational inter- action to the linear regime, one keeps the entire Newto- nian potential ˆHgrav = −G2 R d3xR d3yµ(x)ˆˆ|x−y|µ(y)in the TD model. In particular, what is measured here is the mass density ˆµ(x) and the corresponding feedback Hamilto- nian reads
Hˆfb = Z
d3x Z
d3y V (x − y)ˆµ(x)r(y), (20) where V (x −y) = −G/|x−y| is the Newtonian potential and
r(x) = hˆµ(x)it+ ~ Z
d3y γ−1(x − y)dWt(y)
dt , (21) is the measurement record of the mass density, where γ(x − y) is a spatial correlation function, γ−1(x − y) its inverse function and Wt(x) is a standard Wiener process with zero average and the correlations reading E[dWt(x)dWt(y)] = γ(x − y)dt. By following the proce- dure highlighted in AppendixA, one can derive the TD master equation, which reads [42]
d
dtρˆt= −i
~[ ˆH0+ ˆHgrav, ˆρt] + 1
2~
Z d3x
Z
d3y V (x − y)[ˆµ(x), [ˆµ(y), ˆρt]], (22)
where we chose γ(x−y) = −2~V (x−y) and ˆH0is the free Hamiltonian. As in KTM model, also in TD model the gravitational interaction ˆHgrav is reproduced in the von Neumann term, although one pays the price of having an additional gravitational decoherence term. Finally, we notice that due to the form of the Newtonian gravita- tional potential, the integrals in Eq. (22) are in general
divergent. However, they can be regularized by using a suitable smearing function g(x) as it was thoroughly discussed in [43].
As for the KTM model, also for the TD model the asymptotic energy is in general divergent. For exam- ple, if we consider a system of N point-like particles, whose mass, position operator and mass density respec- tively read mk, ˆxk and
ˆ µ(x) =
N
X
k=1
mkδ(x − ˆxk), (23)
we find that Eq. (22) gives
h ˆHit= 3~GP
kmk
4√πR30 t. (24) To solve this issue, we aim at modifying the TD model by adding dissipative features although still reproducing the quantum gravitational interaction. This can be done through a specific choice of the operators to be measured.
Our choice is to continuously measure the following op- erator
A(x) = ˆˆ µ(x) + iˆµI(x), (25) in place of the mass density of the system ˆµ(x) alone.
Here, ˆµI(x) is an Hermitian arbitrary operator yet to be determined. The corresponding measurement can be computed through
r(x) = 1
2h ˆA(x) + ˆA†(x)it+ ~ Z
d3y γ−1(x − y)dWt(y) dt ,
(26) and it results to be equal to that in Eq. (21). Correspond- ingly, also the feedback Hamiltonian does not change with respect to that of the TD model, and thus the quantum gravitational interaction can be correctly re- produced. Finally, by following the calculations reported in Appendix A, one derives the master equation of the dissipative generalization of the TD model, which reads
d
dtρˆt= −i
~[ ˆH0′+ ˆHgrav, ˆρt] + 1
2~
Z d3x
Z
d3y V (x − y)[ˆµ(x), [ˆµ(y), ˆρt]]
+ i 2~
Z d3x
Z
d3y V (x − y)[ˆµ(x), {ˆµI(y), ˆρt}]
+ 1 4~
Z d3x
Z
d3y V (x − y)[ˆµI(x), [ˆµI(y), ˆρt]]
+ 1 2~
Z d3x
Z
d3y V (x − y)[ˆµ(x), [ˆµI(y), ˆρt]], (27)
where we set γ(x − y) = −2~V (x − y) and Hˆgrav= 1
2 Z
d3x Z
d3y V (x − y)ˆµ(x)ˆµ(y), (28)
is the gravitational interaction, and we defined ˆH0′ = Hˆ0+ ∆ ˆH0, where
∆ ˆH0= 1 4~
Z d3x
Z
d3y V (x − y){ˆµ(x), ˆµI(y)}, (29)
is an additional term due to the continuous measurement process. We stress that the structure of Eq. (27) is analo- gous to that of the dissipative KTM model in Eq. (12). In the following, for the sake of simplicity, we approximate Hˆ0′ to ˆH0, since we expect that this does not substan- tially change the mechanism that causes the asymptotic mean energy of the system to be finite.
V. LINEAR LIMIT OF THE TD MODEL
At this point of the discussion, we want to fix the form of ˆµI(x) to properly derive the dissipative dynamics we want. We start by considering a N point-particle system, whose mass density is given in Eq. (23), and we choose the following form for ˆµI(x):
ˆ µI(x) =
N
X
k=1
mkδ(x −αk
~ ∆ˆpk), (30)
where ∆ˆpk is the quantum fluctuation of the momentum of the k-th particle and αk are real free parameters yet to be determined. These choices for ˆµ(x) and ˆµI(x) lead to divergences in the master equation (27), which are expected, similarly as those present in the TD model (see also the discussion after Eq. (22) and in Ref. [43]). We proceed then with a regularization of the gravitational potential V (x − y), namely we implement the following substitution: V (x−y) → (g ◦ V ◦g)(x−y), where g(x) is a suitable smearing function, e.g. a normalized Gaussian of variance R0.
To guarantee that ours is a good choice for ˆµI(x), we make a comparison with the dissipative KTM model in the appropriate limit. In particular, we substitute Eq. (23) and Eq. (30) in Eq. (27), and we rewrite the position operators as
ˆ
xk = x(0)k + ∆ˆxk (31)
where ∆ˆxk are the quantum fluctuations with respect to the classical position x(0)k . In the assumption of small quantum fluctuations, we can take the linear limit of the
dissipative TD master equation (27), which reads d
dtρˆt= −i
~[ ˆH0+ ˆHgrav, ˆρt]
−
N
X
k,j=1 3
X
l,n=1
Gmkmjηkjln(1)
2~ [ˆxkl, [ˆxjn, ˆρt]]
−
N
X
k,j=1 3
X
l,n=1
Gmkmjαkαjη(2)kjln
4~3 [ˆpkl, [ˆpjn, ˆρt]]
−
N
X
k,j=1 3
X
l,n=1
iGmkmjαjηkjln(3)
2~2 [ˆxkl, {ˆpjn, ˆρt}]
−
N
X
k,j=1 3
X
l,n=1
Gmkmjαjη(3)kjln
2~2 [ˆxkl, [ˆpjn, ˆρt]],
(32)
where ˆxkland ˆpklare the components in the l-th direction of ∆ˆxk and ∆ˆpk respectively, and
Hˆgrav= G 4
N
X
k,j=1 3
X
l,n=1
mkmjηkjln(1) (ˆxkl− ˆxjl)(ˆxkn− ˆxjn), (33) is the gravitational interaction in the linear limit plus corrections to the Hamiltonian ˆH0. Here, we defined
ηkjln(1) =
Z d3k 2π2~3
˜ g2(k)
k2 klkne~ik·(x(0)k −x(0)j ), ηkjln(2) =
Z d3k 2π2~3
˜ g2(k)
k2 klkn, ηkjln(3) =
Z d3k 2π2~3
˜ g2(k)
k2 klkne~ik·x(0)k ,
(34)
where we made explicit the Fourier transform of the New- tonian gravitational potential ˜V (k) = −4πG~2/k2.
Now, we reduce the problem to that of only two har- monic oscillators at frequency ω in one dimension, with mk = m and αk = α. Thus, Eq. (32) is reduced to
d
dtρˆt= −i
~[ ˆH, ˆρt] −
2
X
k,j=1
iGm2αη(3)kj
2~2 [ˆxk, {ˆpj, ˆρt}]
−
2
X
k,j=1
Gm2ηkj(1)
2~ [ˆxk, [ˆxj, ˆρt]] −
2
X
k,j=1
Gm2αηkj(3)
2~2 [ˆxk, [ˆpj, ˆρt]]
−
2
X
k,j=1
Gm2α2η(2)kj
4~3 [ˆpk, [ˆpj, ˆρt]],
(35) where η(α)kj = ηkj11(α) are explicitly computed in Appendix C, and
H =ˆ
2
X
k=1
ˆp2k
2m+mΩ2 2 xˆ2k
− Gm2η(1)12xˆ1ˆx2, (36) includes also the linearized quantum gravitational inter- action ˆHgrav and we defined
Ω2= ω2+ Gmη(1)12. (37)
We notice that Eq. (35) has a structure similar to that of the dissipative KTM master equation (12), although there are some some differences. In particular, additional terms in the commutators and anticommutators mixing the position and momentum operators of different parti- cles appear, and the coefficients ηkj(i) differ.
By inserting the explicit expressions of ηkj(i) [cf. Eq. (C3)] in Eq. (35), we can decouple the center-of-mass and relative dynamics. Correspondingly, Eq. (35) can be divided in two independent master equations. That for the center-of-mass reads
d
dtρˆcm= −i
~[ ˆHcm, ˆρcm] −Gm2
~ η+[ˆxcm, [ˆxcm, ˆρcm]]
−Gm2α2
4~3 η[ˆpcm, [ˆpcm, ˆρcm]]
−iGm2α
~2 η(3)[ˆxcm, {ˆpcm, ˆρcm}]
−Gm2α
~2 η(3)[ˆxcm, [ˆpcm, ˆρcm]],
(38)
where η = (6√
πR30)−1 and we defined Hˆcm=pˆ2cm
4m + mΩ2cmxˆ2cm, (39) with Ω2cm= Ω2− Gmη12(1)= ω2. On the other hand, the relative dynamics is described by the following diffusive master equation
d
dtρˆrel= −i
~[ ˆHrel, ˆρrel] − Gm2
4~ η−[ˆxrel, [ˆxrel, ˆρrel]], (40) where
Hˆrel=pˆ2rel m +m
4Ω2relxˆ2rel, (41) is the relative Hamiltonian with Ω2rel = Ω2+ Gmη12(1) = ω2+ 2Gmη12(1), and η± = η ± η(1)12. The latter and η+
explicitly read
η±= 1 2√
πR30
1 3 ∓e−
d2 4R20
d2 (4R20+ d2)
± 2 erf
d 2R0
d3 .
(42) Some consideration are now due here. Being g(x) a smearing function regulating the standard divergences of the Newtonian potential, we assume that R0 is small.
In particular, this should be smaller than the millimeter scale, above which gravity has been verified to follow the Newton law. Then, an interesting limit is that of the classical distance between the two particles d = |x(0)1 − x(0)2 | being larger than R0. In such a case the coefficients take the values in Table I and one find that both the center-of-mass and relative energy grow as
d
dth ˆHcmi =~Gmη
2 +Gm3α2ω2η
2~ ,
d
dth ˆHreli =~Gmη 2 .
(43)
TABLE I: Relevant limits of the coefficients η±and η(3) Coefficient d ≫ R0 d ≪ R0
η+ η 2η
η− η 0
η(3) 0 η
However, as the gravitational attraction – described by the first term of the master equation (35) – pull the two particles together and the distance shrinks d down to the limit of d ≪ R0, in which limit the coefficient take the values in TableI. Then, by moving along the lines drawn in Sec. III, we analyze the behaviour of the asymptotic energy described by Eq. (35). After lengthly calcula- tions, which are reported in Appendix D, we find that the center-of-mass motion and the relative one decouple.
Correspondingly, we can compute asymptotic energy of the center-of-mass, which reads
h ˆHcmi∞= ~2
2mα +αmω2
4 −αm2Gη
2 +G2α3m5η2 2~2 .
(44) We notice that such an expression is equal to half the right hand side of Eq. (13) with η substituted by d−3. Now, applying the same limit considered in the dissipa- tive KTM model of α → 0, one finds that the center-of- mass of the system thermalizes at the temperature ex- pressed in Eq. (16), namely Teff = ~2/2m0α0kB, where we employed Eq. (14). Moreover, the diffusive term in Eq. (40) vanishes, implying a conservation of the relative energy. However, the corresponding asymptotic value cannot be straightforwardly derived.
VI. CONCLUSIONS
The protocol based on the continuous measurement and feedback mechanism in the KTM and TD model well reconstructs the quantum gravitational interaction from a fundamentally classical description [43]. The cor- responding appearance of decoherence terms which lead to an indefinite energy increase is, however, a problem.
Here, we suggested a way to account for this feature by suitably modifying the protocol. We derived the dissipa- tive generalizations of the two models, and showed that – in the appropriate limits – the system under such a proto- col thermalizes to an effective temperature [cf. Eq. (16)].
With our generalization, the energy of the system re- mains finite in the asymptotic limit. Yet, energy conser- vation at each time is still lacking. A possible step for- ward in such a direction could be to upgrade the stochas- tic noises of the protocol to physical fields owing a dy- namics [55, 56]. Then, one could in principle be able to conserve the total energy of the system plus the stochas- tic field. This is subject for future research.
Acknowledgments
MC is supported by UK EPSRC (grant nr. EP/T028106/1). AB acknowledges financial support from the INFN, the University of Trieste and the support by grant number (FQXi-RFP-CPW-2002) from the Foundational Questions Institute and Fetzer Franklin Fund, a donor advised fund of Silicon Valley Community Foundation. MC and AB acknowledge support from the H2020 FET Project TEQ (Grant No.
766900).
Appendix A: Continuous quantum measurement and feedback framework
By following the approach in [39,40], we briefly review the dynamics due to a continuous quantum measurement and due to the feedback. For the sake of simplicity we consider only the discrete case of one-dimensional system of two particles and that of a generic continuous system in three dimensions.
1. One dimensional two-particle system
i) Continuous measurement.– The stochastic Schr¨odinger equation of two particles due to a con- tinuous quantum measurement of arbitrary operators Aˆk is given by
d|ψtim= −
2
X
k=1
γk
8~2 ˆA†kAˆk+ h ˆA†kit
h ˆAkit− 2 ˆAk
|ψtidt
+
2
X
k=1
√γk
2~ ˆAk− h ˆAkit
|ψtidWk,t,
(A1) where h ˆAkit = hψt| ˆAk|ψti. The constants γk rep- resent the information rate of the measurement and dWk,t are standard independent Wiener process such that E[dWk,t] = 0 and E[dWk,tdWj,t] = δkjdt. The mea- surement record corresponding to the measurement of Aˆkis defined as in Eq. (11). This is a stochastic quantity centered at the average value 12h ˆAk+ ˆA†kit and with a variance defined by γk and dWk,t.
ii) Feedback dynamics.– After performing the measure- ment of the operators ˆAk, we can send the correspond- ing measurement result to the complementary subsystem.
This operation can be performed employing the following feedback Hamiltonian
Hˆfb= χ1r1Bˆ2+ χ2r2Bˆ1, (A2) where χk are real constants and ˆBk are suitable opera- tors.
The corresponding feedback equation is computed by unitarily evolve the state |ψti with respect to ˆHfb. Then,
the infinitesimal increment of the state is given by d|ψtifb= −
2
X
k,j=1 j6=k
iχk
2~ h ˆAk+ ˆA†kitBˆj+ χ2k 2γk
Bˆj2
dt
−iχk
√γk
BˆjdWk,t
|ψti .
(A3) iii) Combined evolution.– Finally, the stochastic Schr¨odinger equation comprising the combined effects of the continuous measurement and feedback is given by
d|ψti =d|ψtim+d|ψtifb+d|ψtiItˆo, (A4) where the third term comes from the stochastic Itˆo cal- culus:
d|ψtiItˆo= −
2
X
k,j=1 j6=k
i
2~χkBˆj( ˆAk− h ˆAkit) |ψtidt. (A5)
The corresponding master equation for the density ma- trix is found by performing the stochastic average over the noise, and is given by
d
dtρˆt= −i
~[ ˆH0, ˆρt] −
2
X
k,j=1 j6=k
χ2k 2γk
[ ˆBj, [ ˆBj, ˆρt]]
−
2
X
k,j=1 j6=k
i
2~χk ˆBjρˆtAˆ†k− ˆAkρˆtBˆj+ ˆBjAˆkρˆt− ˆρtAˆ†kBˆj
+
2
X
k=1
γk
4~2
AˆkρˆtAˆ†k−1
2 ˆA†kAˆkρˆt+ ˆρtAˆ†kAˆk
,
(A6) where we added the unitary evolution described by the Hamiltonian ˆH0. The second and third terms of Eq. (A6) come from the feedback dynamics, while the last one comes from continuous measurement of ˆAk. Moreover, by suitably rearranging the third term as
[ ˆBjAˆk+ ˆAk†Bˆj, ˆρt] + [ ˆBjρˆt, ˆA†k] + [ˆρtBˆj, ˆAk], (A7) one can explicit an effective correction to the Hamilto- nian. Such a correction reads
HˆI=
2
X
k,j=1 j6=k
χk
2 ˆBjAˆk+ ˆA†kBˆj
, (A8)
and it can be interpreted as an interaction Hamiltonian between the two particles. We underline that such a term comes from the combined action of the continuous mea- surement and feedback dynamics.
2. Continuous system in three dimensions
i) Continuous measurement.– The stochastic Schr¨odinger equation resulting from the continuous
measurement of an arbitrary operator ˆA(x) is
d|ψtim= −
Z d3xd3y
8~2 γ(x − y)h ˆA†(x) ˆA(y) + h ˆA†(x)it
h ˆA(y)it− 2 ˆA(y)i
|ψtidt +
Z d3x
2~ ˆA(x) − h ˆA(x)it
|ψtidWt(x),
(A9)
where the noise is now described by E[dWt(x)] = 0 and E[dWt(x)dWt(y)] = γ(x − y)dt, where γ(x − y) is an ar- bitrary spatial correlator. The measurement record reads as in Eq. (26), where γ−1(x − y) is the inverse function of γ(x − y). The following expression
(γ ◦ γ−1)(x − y) = Z
d3r γ(x − r)γ−1(r − y) = δ(x − y), (A10) relates these two functions.
ii) Feedback dynamics.– We broadcast the measure- ment record to the system by using the following feedback Hamiltonian
Hˆfb= Z
d3xd3y V (x − y) ˆB(x)r(y), (A11)
where ˆB(x) is an Hermitian operator and V (x − y) is a generic function. The corresponding infinitesimal waves- tate evolution reads
d |ψtifb= − Z
d3xd3y
i
2~V (x − y) h ˆA(x) + ˆA†(x)itdt +1
2(V ◦ γ−1◦ V )(x − y) ˆB(y)dt +i(V ◦ γ−1)(x − y)dWt(y)B(x) |ψˆ ti .
(A12) iii) Combined evolution.– The stochastic Schr¨odinger equation of the combined dynamics is given by Eq. (A4), where
d|ψtiItˆo= −i
Z d3xd3y
2~ V (x − y) ˆB(x)
ˆA(y) − h ˆA(y)it
|ψtidt.
(A13)
Correspondingly, the master equation reads d
dtρˆt= −i
~[ ˆH0, ˆρt] − i
Z d3xd3y
2~ V (x − y)h ˆB(x)ˆρtAˆ†(y) + ˆB(x) ˆA(y)ˆρt− ˆA(x)ˆρtB(y) + ˆˆ ρtAˆ†(x) ˆB(y)i
−
Z d3xd3y
2 (V ◦ γ−1◦ V )(x − y)[ ˆB(y), [ ˆB(x), ˆρt]]
+
Z d3xd3y
4~2 γ(x − y)
A(x)ˆˆ ρtAˆ†(y) −1
2 ˆA†(x) ˆA(y)ˆρt
+ ˆρtAˆ†(x) ˆA(y)i
(A14)
We notice that Eq. (A14) has the same form of Eq. (A6).
The second and third terms come from the feedback dy- namics, while the last term comes from continuous mea- surement. Similarly as done previously, we can extract an interaction Hamiltonian reading
HˆI=
Z d3xd3y
2 V (x − y) ˆB(x) ˆA(y) + ˆA†(x) ˆB(y) , (A15) by suitably rearrange the second term of the master equa- tion. Thus, even in the case of a continuous system, one obtains an interaction Hamiltonian term from the com- bined action of continuous measurement and feedback dynamics.
Appendix B: Asymptotic energy of the dissipative KTM model
Here we derive the asymptotic energy in the dissipa- tive KTM model. For the sake of simplicity, we will as- sume ˆH0′ = ˆH0 in Eq. (12), since no substantial change in the mechanism causing the thermalization of the sys- tem is expected. To simplify the calculations, we move to center-of-mass and relative displacement coordinates, which are defined as ˆxcm = 12(ˆx1+ ˆx2), ˆpcm = ˆp1+ ˆp2, ˆ
xrel = ˆx1− ˆx2 and ˆprel = 12(ˆp1− ˆp2). Then, the Hamil- tonian in Eq. (12) can be rewritten as ˆH = ˆHcm+ ˆHrel, where
Hˆcm= pˆ2cm
4m + mω2ˆx2cm, Hˆrel=pˆ2rel
m +m 4Ω˜2xˆ2rel,
(B1)
are respectively the Hamiltonian center-of-mass of mass 2m, and that of the relative displacement with mass m/2 and frequency ˜Ω = pΩ2− K/m. Consequently, by as- suming that γk takes the expression in Eq. (6) and that all αk are equal to α, we find that Eq. (12) can be di- vided in two independent master equations. The one for the center-of-mass reads
d
dtρˆcm= −i
~[ ˆHcm, ˆρcm] −K
~[ˆxcm, [ˆxcm, ˆρcm]]
−iKα
2~2[ˆxcm, {ˆpcm, ˆρcm}] −Kα2
8~3 [ˆpcm, [ˆpcm, ˆρcm]]
+αK
2~2[ˆxcm, [ˆpcm, ˆρcm]],
(B2)
while that for the relative displacement is given by d
dtρˆrel= −i
~[ ˆHrel, ˆρrel] − K
4~[ˆxrel, [ˆxrel, ˆρrel]]
−iKα
2~2[ˆxrel, {ˆprel, ˆρrel}] −Kα2
2~3 [ˆprel, [ˆprel, ˆρrel]]
−αK
2~2[ˆxrel, [ˆprel, ˆρrel]].
(B3)
By defining ˆTcm = ˆp2cm/4m, ˆVcm = mω2xˆ2cm, ˆTrel = ˆ
p2rel/m and ˆVrel = m ˜Ω2xˆ2rel/4, we obtain two systems of three coupled differential equations of the first order. The system for the center-of-mass reads
d
dth ˆVcmit= ω2
2 h{ˆpcm, ˆxcm}it+Kα2mω2 4~ , d
dth ˆTcmit= −2Kα
~ h ˆTcmit−ω2
2 h{ˆpcm, ˆxcm}it+~K 2m, d
dth{ˆpcm, ˆxcm}it= −Kα
~ h{ˆpcm, ˆxcm}it+ 4 h ˆTcmit
− 4 h ˆVcmit+ αK,
(B4) while that for the relative displacement is
d
dth ˆVrelit=1
2Ω˜2h{ˆp12, ˆxrel}it+Kα2m 4~ Ω˜2, d
dth ˆTrelit= −2Kα
~ h ˆTrelit−1
2Ω˜2h{ˆprel, ˆxrel}it+~K 2m, d
dth{ˆp12, ˆxrel}it= −Kα(1 +h{ˆprel, ˆxrel}it
~ ) + 4 h ˆTrel− ˆVrelit. (B5) Finally, we can obtain the asymptotic energy fo the sys- tem by setting the above derivatives to zero. Thus, we find
h ˆHi∞= ~2
mα+αmΩ2
2 +K2α3m
4~2 , (B6) where we imposed ˆHcm= ˆTcm+ ˆVcmand ˆHrel = ˆTrel+ ˆVrel.
Appendix C: Calculation of the ηkj(i) coefficients in the linearized dissipative TD master equation
Here, we compute the coefficients η(i)kj appearing in Eq. (35). In particular, they are derived from Eq. (34) by restricting the problem to the one dimensional case.
Correspondingly, we find
ηkj(1)=
Z d3k 2π2~3
˜ g2(k)
k2 k12e~ik1(x(0)k −x(0)j ), ηkj(2)=
Z d3k 2π2~3
˜ g2(k)
k2 k12, ηkj(3)=
Z d3k 2π2~3
˜ g2(k)
k2 k12e~ik1x(0)k .
(C1)
Now, we can compare Eq. (35) with the KTM master equation (12) once computing the coefficients in Eq. (C1), which can be done by moving to spherical coordinates and choosing a suitable form of the smearing function.
In particular, when considering the Gaussian smearing
g(x − y) = e−
|x−y|2 2R20
(2πR20)3/2, (C2)
whose Fourier transform reads ˜g(k) = e−k2 R22~20, we find that the coefficients become
ηkk(1)= ηkj(2)= η, for k, j = 1, 2,
η12(1)= η21(1)= 1 2√
πR30 e−
d2 4R20
d2 (4R20+ d2) − 2 erf
d 2R0
d3 ,
η(3)= 2
√πR03 e−
d2 16R20
d2
4R02+d2 4
− 16 erf
d 4R0
d3 ,
(C3) where η = (6√
πR03)−1. Here, we suitably choose the coordinate system as centered halfway between x(0)1 and x(0)2 and defined the distance d = |x(0)1 − x(0)2 |.
Appendix D: Calculation of the mean energy in the dissipative TD model
By following the approach used for the dissipative KTM model, we compute the evolution of ˆTcm= ˆp2cm/4m and ˆVcm= mΩ2cmxˆ2cmusing Eq. (38). We find the follow- ing system of differential equations
d
dth ˆVcmit=Ω2cm
2 h{ˆpcm, ˆxcm}it+Gm3α2Ω2cmη
2~ ,
d
dth ˆTcmit= −4Gm2αη(3)
~ h ˆTcmit
−Ω2cm
2 h{ˆpcm, ˆxcm}it+~Gmη+
2 ,
d
dth{ˆpcm, ˆxcm}it= −2Gm2αη(3)
~ h{ˆpcm, ˆxcm}it+ 4 h ˆTcmit
− 4 h ˆVcmit− 2Gm2αη(3).
(D1)
Conversely, we find that the relative dynamics is de- scribed by the Eq. (40) and the energy behaviour is de- scribed by
d
dth ˆHrelit=~Gmη−
2 . (D2)
By considering the limit of d ≪ R0, the coefficients take the values in TableI. By imposing that the time deriva- tives in Eq. (D1) vanish, we find
h{ˆpcm, ˆxcm}i∞= −Gm3α2η
~ ,
h ˆTcmi∞= ~2
4mα +αmΩ2cm
8 ,
h ˆVcmi∞= h ˆTcmi∞+G2m5α3η2
2~2 −Gm2αη
2 ,
(D3) which gives Eq. (44) once considering that ˆHcm= ˆTcm+ Vˆcm, and Ω2cm= Ω2− Gmη = ω2.
[1] H.-H. v. Borzeszkowski and H. J. Treder, The meaning of quantum gravity (Reidel Publishing Co, 1988).
[2] C. Kiefer, Quantum gravity, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2007).
[3] D. Oriti, Approaches to quantum gravity: Toward a new understanding of space, time and matter (Cambridge University Press, 2009).
[4] M. Green, J. Schwarz, and E. Witten, Superstring The- ory, Vol. 1 (Cambridge University Press, 1987).
[5] C. Rovelli,Living Reviews in Relativity 1, 1 (1998).
[6] S. Steinhaus, arXiv eprints , 2007.01315 (2020).
[7] A. Peres and D. R. Terno,
Physical Review A 63, 022101 (2001).
[8] C. W¨uthrich,Philosophy of Science 72, 777 (2005).
[9] T. Rothman and S. Boughn,
Foundations of Physics 36, 1801 (2006).
[10] S. Carlip,Classical and Quantum Gravity 25, 154010 (2008).
[11] A. Ahmadzadegan, R. B. Mann, and D. R. Terno, Physical Review A 93, 032122 (2016).
[12] S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ul-
bricht, M. Toroˇs, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. Kim, and G. Milburn, Physical Review Letters 119, 240401 (2017).
[13] C. Marletto and V. Vedral,
Physical Review Letters 119, 240402 (2017).
[14] T. Krisnanda, M. Zuppardo, M. Paternostro, and T. Pa- terek,Physical Review Letters 119, 120402 (2017).
[15] A. Belenchia, R. M. Wald, F. Giacomini, E. Castro-Ruiz, ˇC. Brukner, and M. Aspelmeyer, Physical Review D 98, 126009 (2018).
[16] M. J. Hall and M. Reginatto,
Journal of Physics A 51, 085303 (2018).
[17] M. Christodoulou and C. Rovelli, Physics Letters B 792, 64 (2019).
[18] D. Carney, P. C. Stamp, and J. M. Taylor, Classical and Quantum Gravity 36, 034001 (2019).
[19] S. P. Kumar and M. B. Plenio,
Nature Communications 11, 1 (2020).
[20] S. Donadi, K. Piscicchia, C. Curceanu, L. Di´osi, M. Laubenstein, and A. Bassi,
Nature Physics 17, 74 (2021).
[21] R. J. Marshman, A. Mazumdar, and S. Bose, Physical Review A 101, 052110 (2020).
[22] G. Bhole, J. A. Jones, C. Marletto, and V. Vedral, Journal of Physics Communications 4, 025013 (2020).
[23] H. Chevalier, A. Paige, and M. Kim, Physical Review A 102, 022428 (2020).
[24] H. Miao, D. Martynov, H. Yang, and A. Datta, Physical Review A 101, 063804 (2020).
[25] S. Rijavec, M. Carlesso, A. Bassi, V. Vedral, and C. Mar- letto,New Journal of Physics 23, 043040 (2021).
[26] M. Rojas and I. P. Lobo, arXiv eprints , 2106.05696 (2021).
[27] D. Miki, A. Matsumura, and K. Yamamoto, Physical Review D 103, 026017 (2021).
[28] R. Penrose, General Relativity and Gravitation 28, 581 (1996).
[29] L. Diosi,Physics Letters A 105, 199 (1984).
[30] L. Di´osi,Journal of Physics: Conference Series 306, 012006 (2011).
[31] W. P. Bowen and G. J. Milburn, Quantum optomechanics (CRC press, 2015).
[32] A. Bassi, A. Großardt, and H. Ulbricht, Classical and Quantum Gravity 34, 193002 (2017).
[33] K. E. Khosla and N. Altamirano,
Physical Review A 95, 052116 (2017).
[34] D. Kafri and J. Taylor, arXiv eprints , 1311.4558 (2013).
[35] D. Kafri, G. Milburn, and J. Taylor, New Journal of Physics 17, 015006 (2015).
[36] A. Tilloy and L. Di´osi,
Physical Review D 96, 104045 (2017).
[37] L. Di´osi and A. Tilloy,
Open Systems & Information Dynamics 24, 1740020 (2017).
[38] N. Altamirano, P. Corona-Ugalde,
R. B. Mann, and M. Zych,
Classical and Quantum Gravity 35, 145005 (2018).
[39] K. Jacobs and D. A. Steck,
Contemporary Physics 47, 279 (2006).
[40] H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn, Quantum measure-
ment and control (Cambridge university press, 2009).
[41] D. Kafri, J. Taylor, and G. Milburn, New Journal of Physics 16, 065020 (2014).
[42] A. Tilloy and L. Di´osi,
Physical Review D 93, 024026 (2016).
[43] J. L. G. Reyes, M. Carlesso, and A. Bassi, Physical Review D 103, 056011 (2020).
[44] A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Physica A 121, 587 (1983).
[45] B. L. Hu, J. P. Paz, and Y. Zhang, Physical Review D 45, 2843 (1992).
[46] G. W. Ford and R. F. O’Connell,
Physical Review D 64, 105020 (2001).
[47] H.-P. Breuer, F. Petruccione, et al., The theory of open quantum systems (Oxford University Press, 2002).
[48] C. Gardiner and P. Zoller, Quantum Noise (Springer- Verlag Berlin, 2004).
[49] M. A. Schlosshauer, Decoherence: and the quantum-to- classical transition (Springer Science & Business Media, 2007).
[50] U. Weiss, Quantum dissipative systems, Vol. 13 (World scientific, 2012).
[51] E. Joos, H. D. Zeh, C. Kiefer, D. J. Giulini, J. Kupsch, and I.-O. Stamatescu, Decoherence and the appearance of a classical world in quantum theory (Springer Science &
Business Media, 2013).
[52] M. Carlesso and A. Bassi,
Physical Review A 95, 052119 (2017).
[53] B. Vacchini,Physical Review Letters 84, 1374 (2000).
[54] K. Huang, Introduction to statistical physics (CRC press, 2009).
[55] S. L. Adler, Quantum theory as an emergent phe- nomenon: The statistical mechanics of matrix models as the precursor of quantum field theory (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, 2004).
[56] P. Pearle,Foundations of Physics 30, 1145 (2000).