Exploring The Unification of Quantum Theory and Ge

New J. Phys. 21 (2019) 043047 https://doi.org/10.
1088/1367-2630/ab104a
PAPER
Exploring the unification of quantum theory and general relativity

OPEN ACCESS
with a Bose–Einstein condensate
RECEIVED
20 December 2018
Richard Howl1 , Roger Penrose2 and Ivette Fuentes1
REVISED 1
4 March 2019
School of Mathematical Sciences, University of Nottingham, University Park, Nottingham, NG72RD, United Kingdom
2
Mathematical Institute, Andrew Wiles Building, University of Oxford, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Woodstock Road, Oxford,
ACCEPTED FOR PUBLICATION
OX26GG, United Kingdom
15 March 2019
PUBLISHED
E-mail: richard.howl1@nottingham.ac.uk
25 April 2019
Keywords: quantum gravity, quantum superposition, Bose–Einstein condensates, general relativity, foundations of quantum theory
Original content from this

work may be used under
the terms of the Creative Abstract
Commons Attribution 3.0
licence. Despite almost a century’s worth of study, it is still unclear how general relativity (GR) and quantum
Any further distribution of theory (QT) should be unified into a consistent theory. The conventional approach is to retain the
this work must maintain
attribution to the foundational principles of QT, such as the superposition principle, and modify GR. This is referred to
author(s) and the title of
the work, journal citation
as ‘quantizing gravity’, resulting in a theory of ‘quantum gravity’. The opposite approach is ‘gravitizing
and DOI. QT’ where we attempt to keep the principles of GR, such as the equivalence principle, and consider
how this leads to modifications of QT. What we are most lacking in understanding which route to
take, if either, is experimental guidance. Here we consider using a Bose–Einstein condensate (BEC) to
search for clues. In particular, we study how a single BEC in a superposition of two locations could test
a gravitizing QT proposal where wavefunction collapse emerges from a unified theory as an objective
process, resolving the measurement problem of QT. Such a modification to QT due to general
relativistic principles is testable near the Planck mass scale, which is much closer to experiments than
the Planck length scale where quantum, general relativistic effects are traditionally anticipated in
quantum gravity theories. Furthermore, experimental tests of this proposal should be simpler to
perform than recently suggested experiments that would test the quantizing gravity approach in the
Newtonian gravity limit by searching for entanglement between two massive systems that are both in a
superposition of two locations.
1. Introduction
1.1. Motivation and background

At the turn of the previous century, Newtonian mechanics was advanced by two revolutionary theories,
quantum theory (QT) and general relativity (GR). Both theories have transformed our view of physical
phenomena, with QT accurately predicting the results of low-mass experiments, and GR correctly describing
observations for large masses. However, it remains unclear how QT and GR should be unified into a consistent
theory. The conventional approach, where we ‘quantize gravity’, is to try to treat gravity like any other force as
much as possible, and formulate a ‘quantum gravity’ theory, such as string theory. The opposite approach,
however, is to ‘gravitize QT’ [1–6]. The idea here is that GR not only provides a unique and universal role for
gravity among physical processes but also, given that it cannot straightforwardly be quantized as with other
physical processes, requires the current framework of QT to be modified.
An additional motivation behind this alternative approach is that it can resolve the measurement problem of
QT and, therefore, arguably make the theory consistent and provide a well-defined classical limit, which is not
possible for a conventional quantum gravity theory3. Since it is around the boundary of QT and GR (i.e. at
macroscopic mass scales) that we have not observed quantum superposition, it is possible to modify QT such
3
Of course proponents of certain interpretations of QT, such as many worlds [18] and relational quantum mechanics [19], would argue that
there is no problem.
© 2019 The Author(s). Published by IOP Publishing Ltd on behalf of the Institute of Physics and Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft
New J. Phys. 21 (2019) 043047 R Howl et al
that quantum state reduction (QSR) is a (non-unitary) process that objectively occurs in nature due to
gravitational influences, without impacting on the accuracy of QT in its tested domain [3, 7–17].
This predicted modification to QT also allows for tests of a unified theory of GR and QT that are far more
achievable than probing the Planck length scale where quantum, general relativistic effects are predicted to occur
in conventional quantum gravity theories. This may seem, at first, unimaginable since it is often stated that the
gravitational force is absolutely insignificant when compared with the electromagnetic force that dominates the
normal structural and dynamical behavior of material bodies. Thus, the influence that GR has on the quantum
behavior of physical systems must be of a different character from the mere incorporation of gravitational forces.
Indeed, it is argued that there is a certain profound tension between the foundational principles of QT and GR
such that we must demand a time limitation on unitary evolution, and that this is reciprocally related to the
gravitational self-energy of the difference between mass distributions of pairs of states in quantum superposition
[1–6] (compare also [11, 12]). Quantum superposition is then an approximation to a more general process of a
unified theory of GR and QT, and this approximation is very good for the low-mass systems that we study in
quantum experiments, but poor for the large-mass systems that we observe in our macroscopic world.
For example, taking a sphere of mass M and radius R in a superposition of two locations of separation b, the
average lifetime of the superposition state is estimated to be τ=5ÿR/(6GM2) when b  R and a free parameter
γ in the theory is set to 1/(8π) [6] (see also section 2.1). Quantum, general relativistic effects are often considered
to occur near the Planck length scale, which is proportional to G and far out of reach of current particle
accelerators. However, here we have the ratio of two small quantities, ÿ/G, coming from the square of the Planck
mass, which brings the effects of a unified theory of GR and QT much closer to current experiments.
This ratio is also found in lab-based proposals for testing whether the gravitational field obeys quantum
superposition. Such tests were first suggested by Feynman who proposed using a Stern–Gerlach experiment to
place a macroscopic ball in a quantum superposition, which, in principle, could place its gravitational field in a
quantum superposition, and then use a second ball and, possibly, an inverse Stern–Gerlach to determine
whether the field is in a superposition or not [20]. This has inspired many theoretical and experimental studies
(for a review see e.g. [21]) and would test an important prediction of the quantizing gravity approach in the
Newtonian gravity limit (the testable prediction can be derived when just considering applying QT to gravity in
its non-relativistic limit, where the theories would be expected to be compatible in the conventional approach)4.
Most recently, modern versions of Feynman’s experiment have been proposed where measuring
entanglement generated between two massive spheres, both in a superposition of two locations, would prove
that the field is also in a quantum superposition [23, 24]. Assuming the conventional quantizing gravity
approach, the state of the two-body system would be non-separable due to the relative phases f1=GM2tb/[ÿd
(d−b)] and f2=−GM2tb/[ÿd (d+b)], where d is the separation of the two systems, and it is assumed that
b  R and d - b  R [23]5 .For the proposed experimental parameters M ~ 10-14 kg , d ~ 200 mm ,
b ~ 250 mm , R ~ 1 mm and an interaction time of t » 2.5 s , the sum of the phases is (1) and the
entanglement is considered measurable [23]. This test of the quantum superposition of gravity appears far more
achievable than those based on how the position of one test mass is affected by the other due to quantum,
gravitational interactions [23]. However, for the above experimental parameters, gravitationally-induced
quantum state reduction (GQSR) is predicted to occur, on average, around 0.01 s in this experiment, and so no
entanglement would be observed if GQSR takes place.
This does not necessarily mean that entanglement cannot be generated in this two-body system with the
GQSR proposal considered here, but it would be very challenging to observe: either competing effects must be
reduced so that shorter times than 0.01 s can be probed, or the mass of each system must be increased by over an
order of magnitude6. In the GQSR proposal, there is nothing necessarily preventing a gravitational field from
being in a quantum superposition, only that there must, at least, be a time limitation for this that is dependent on
the mass distribution of the system. This is in contrast to other proposed theories, such as a fundamental semi-
classical gravity theory, where gravity is necessarily a classical effect, and no entanglement can ever be
generated [21, 26].
4
Although the testable prediction can be derived using gravity in its non-relativistic limit, gravity is, as far as we know, best described using
GR and so it can be enlightening to consider the experiments from a GR-like point-of-view [22].
5
It is assumed that d - b  R so that the Casimir force can be neglected for realistic masses [23, 25]:
⎡ 23c ⎛  r - 1 ⎞2⎤1 6
d-b⎢ ⎜ ⎟ ⎥ R, (1)
⎣ 0.1 ´ 4pGM 2 ⎝  r + 2 ⎠ ⎦
where òr is the relative permittivity of the material.
6
Note that 0.01 s is the average time that it will take for either of the massive superposition states to decay. Therefore, since this is an average
time, there is still a probability that entanglement could be measured after 2.5 s . In section 2, we consider that GQSR is a Poisson process, in
which case there would be an absolutely imperceptible chance of observing entanglement here.
2
The fact that GQSR occurs, on average, at a much earlier time scale than that required to see entanglement in
the Feynman-inspired experiments, illustrates that GQSR could be observed with much lighter systems.
Indeed, the mass could be reduced by an order of magnitude in these experiments. Furthermore, experiments
of GQSR would only require one massive system to be in a superposition of two locations rather than the two
systems for the above experiments. Effects such as the Casimir force between two systems clearly no longer have
to be considered, drastically improving the experimental feasibility. Additionally, the distance between the
superposition states can also be shorter in tests of GQSR since the average superposition lifetime has a non-
trivial dependence on b and R [6] (see (23)) such that, for example, it does not change significantly from b=2R
to b  R , in contrast to the gravitational potential that changes as the reciprocal of the distance between two
spherical systems.
Evidence of GQSR would rule in the gravitizing QT approach and thus rule out the conventional quantizing
gravity approach (since QT must be modified). In contrast, if entanglement is observed in the Feynman-inspired
experiments then, although this would be a remarkable and significant result, this does not rule out the
gravitizing QT approach since QT could still be modified, for example via a GQSR at some other scale such as the
Planck length scale. This is because the tested effect derives in the non-relativistic limit of quantum gravity, and
so arguably the experiments cannot provide the specifics of how GR should be modified in order to be consistent
with QT in the conventional quantizing gravity approach (see [27] for a possibility of extending the experiments
with much heavier masses to achieve this). The GQSR process considered here, however, has been primarily
motivated from conflicts between GR and QT [3, 12].
If, on the other hand, entanglement were not observed in the Feynman-inspired experiments then this
would suggest that we should adopt the gravitizing QT approach. However, as illustrated above, much simpler
tests, such as those of the GQSR proposal considered here, would already be able to provide evidence of this
approach. Therefore, tests of GQSR based on the quantum superposition of a single massive system could be
performed first and, if no deviations from QT are found, we could then consider predictions of the conventional
quantizing gravity approach, such as searching for entanglement between two massive quantum systems.
1.2. Experimental approaches

In general, GQSR could be experimentally demonstrated by preparing a superposition state of a single system
that is massive enough to produce a non-negligible gravitational field while being sufficiently small enough for
control in the quantum regime. For example, an optomechanical system could be used where a tiny mirror
consisting of 1014 atoms is placed in a spatial superposition due to interactions with photons that are traveling
through an interferometer [28]. If the mirror stays coherent then there is quantum interference at the output,
whereas, if the mirror state reduces then so does the photon’s, and there is a classical output. This type of
experiment has been constructed using a Michelson interferometer with optical cavities [29–31]. However, the
separation of the mirror superposition can reach, at most, about one picometer, which may not be enough to
observe GQSR [32].
Another possibility is to send the massive system itself through a (matter-wave) interferometer. Typically
these experiments use nano or micrometer sized spheres, rods or discs, which we will generally refer to as nano/
micro-objects, that are synthesized from metals or conducting materials and are cooled such that their center-
of-mass motion approaches its quantum ground state. For example, in [33] it is argued that a superconducting
micro-sphere of mass 1013 a.m.u. could be prepared in a spatial superposition of the order of half-a-micrometer
in the near future.
Such matter-wave experiments could also be performed, in principle, using ultracold atoms, and recently it
has been suggested that Bose–Einstein condensates (BECs) confined to a double-well potential would be
effective systems for studying GQSR [34]7. BECs are the coldest objects in the Universe that we know of, and
experiments offer high-levels of control, such as the ability to tune the effective interaction strength between the
atoms. To date, coherent superposition states of a BEC consisting of around 105 atoms over a distance of 54 cm
and with decoherence times of around 1 s have been achieved [35]. It has been argued that BECs are less
promising systems than nano/micro-object experiments for testing objective QSR since they will only
demonstrate single-particle effects. However, BECs often have non-negligible, effective interactions strengths
and thus display effects that cannot be characterized with a single-particle wavefunction. For example, when
constrained to a box trap, BECs can have an effectively constant density [36] and, to generate macroscopic
superposition states, the interactions generally play a significant role [37–40].
In all these experiments, the average lifetime of GQSR needs to be short enough to be seen above
environmental decoherence. The most mathematically straightforward approach to decreasing the lifetime is to
increase the mass of the system, which is a significant experimental challenge. However, different shapes of
7
Ultracold atoms have also been considered recently for distinguishing between the conventional quantizing gravity approach and theories
of classical gravity [41].
3
Figure 1. An imagined quantum experiment for which the Earth’s gravitational field is to be taken into consideration. The Newtonian
perspective uses the laboratory coordinates (r , t ), while the Einsteinian perspective uses the free-fall coordinates (R , T ).
objects will also change the gravitational self-energy, suggesting an alternative approach to decreasing the
lifetime that could be simpler to implement in the laboratory. As far as we are aware, only the quantum
superposition lifetime of a uniform sphere has been considered, with the exception of a uniform cube when the
displacement is only very small [32]8. In section 2.2 we generalize the spherical case to the quantum
superposition of uniform spheroids, which can be generated in nano/micro-object experiments and
approximates rods and discs at high values of ellipticity; finding that the associated time-scale of GQSR can be
shorter for certain spheroidal configurations. Furthermore, we predict how this time-scale changes with the
ellipticity and size of the superposition, potentially allowing for distinguishably from other models of
objective QSR.
In contrast to typical nano/micro-object experiments, BECs generally have non-uniform mass
distributions, which are set by the trapping potential that constrains the BEC system, together with the atom-
atom interactions. Often a Gaussian or quadratic density profile is assumed, which may also be applicable to
other, non-BEC systems. An harmonic trap, which is the most common type of trap, can generate spherical and
spheroidal BECs, and prolate spheroidal (cigar-shaped) BECs are often used. We calculate the rate of GQSR for
spherical and spheroidal BECs (with Gaussian and quadratic density profiles) and, conjecturing that GQSR
follows a Poisson process, we also consider what experimental parameters are required to observe GQSR over
prominent channels of environmental decoherence in BEC experiments (extending the analysis of [34]).
1.3. Outline
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: in section 2, we provide a derivation of GQSR by considering a
certain conflict between the superposition principle of QT and the equivalence principle of GR. We also review
the GQSR process for displaced, uniform spherical mass distributions (section 2.1) and generalize this to
displaced, uniform spheroidal mass distributions (section 2.2), which can be generated in nano/micro-object
experiments. In section 3, we consider testing GQSR using a BEC, calculating the rate of GQSR for displaced,
non-uniform BEC spheres and spheroids, and comparing this to prominent channels of environmental
decoherence. Finally, in section 4, we summarize our findings and consider future prospects.
2. Gravitationally-induced state reduction from conflicts between GR and QT
Here we consider how GQSR can arise due to a conflict between the superposition principle of QT and
equivalence principle of GR9. More detail can be found in [4, 6, 34]. Also, see [3, 34] for how the same proposed
state reduction can be derived using the principle of covariance rather than the principle of equivalence.
Let us first consider a simple situation of a tabletop quantum experiment where it is required that the Earth’s
gravitational field is to be taken into consideration (see figure 1). There are basically two different ways to
incorporate the Earth’s field in this experiment (which is to be considered as constant, both spatially and
temporally, and to be treated non-relativistically). The first, the Newtonian perspective, would simply be to
incorporate a term in the Hamiltonian representing the Newtonian potential (this being the normal prescription
that most physicists would adopt), and use standard Cartesian coordinates (x, y, z, t), or rather (r , t ) in three-
8
See also [42] for an attempt of large separations of uniform cylinders and plates, but which were implicitly assumed to be of infinite extent.
9
Alternative approaches for identifying conflicts between QT and GR include, for example, how principles of GR might affect the
uncertainty relation of QT (see e.g. [43, 44]) and how measuring a classical gravitational field using an apparatus obeying QT could lead to a
universal bound on the optimal precision of the measurement [12].
4
vector form. The second, the Einsteinian perspective, would be to adopt a freely falling reference system (R , T ), in
accordance with which the Earth’s gravitational field vanishes. The relation between the two is:
1 2
R=r- t a, T = t, (2)
2
where the constant three-vector a is the acceleration due to the Earth’s gravity. We denote the wavefunction in
the (r , t ) system, using the Newtonian perspective, by ψ, whereas for the (R , T ) system, using the Einsteinian
perspective, we use Ψ. For a free particle of mass m, we have, according to the Newtonian perspective, the
Schrödinger equation
¶y 2 2
i =-  y - mr .ay, (3)
¶t 2m
whereas, according to the Einsteinian perspective
¶Y 2 2
i =-  Y, (4)
¶t 2m
the operator ∇2 being the same in both coordinate systems. To get consistency between the two perspectives, we
need to relate ψ to Ψ by a phase factor [4–6, 45–47]
m 1 3a 2 - tr .a )
Y = ei (6 t y. (5)
For a quantum experiment involving many particles of total mass m̄ and center of mass r̄ (or R̄ in the
Einstein system), this generalizes to
m
¯ 1 3a 2 - tr¯.a )
Y = ei ( 6 t y. (6)
Since the difference between the Newtonian and Einsteinian perspectives is merely a phase factor, one might
form the opinion that it makes no difference which perspective is adopted. Indeed, the famous experiment by
Colella, Overhauser and Werner [48] (see also [49–51]) performed originally in 1975, did provide some
impressive confirmation of the consistency (up to a certain point) of QT with Einstein’s principle of equivalence.
However, it is important to note that the phase factor that is encountered here is not at all harmless, as it
contains the time-dependence involved in the term
1 3 2
t a, (7)
6
in the exponent, which affects the splitting of field amplitudes into positive and negative frequencies. In other
words, the Einsteinian and Newtonian wavefunctions belong to different Hilbert spaces, corresponding to
different quantum field theoretic vacua. In fact, this situation is basically just a limiting case of the familiar
relativistic (Fulling-Davies-)Unruh effect [45, 46, 52–55], where in a uniformly accelerating (Rindler) reference
frame, we get a non-trivial thermal vacuum of temperature
a
, (8)
2pkc
where a is the magnitude of acceleration, k being Boltzmann’s constant and c, the speed of light. In the current
situation, we are considering the Newtonian approximation c  ¥, so the temperature goes to zero.
Nevertheless, as a direct calculation shows, the Unruh vacuum actually goes over to the Einsteinian one in the
limit c  ¥, in agreement with what has been shown above, and is thus still different from the Newtonian one
even though the temperature difference goes to zero in this limit.
At this stage, we could still argue that it makes no difference whether the Newtonian or Einsteinian
perspective is adopted, so long as one sticks consistently to one perspective or the other overall (since the
formalism is maintained within a single Hilbert space). However, the situation becomes radically different when
one considers the gravitating body, in this example the Earth, to be in a quantum superposition between pairs of
states in which the gravitational fields differ. If we were to adopt the Newtonian perspective for our quantum
experiment then we would encounter no problem with the formalism of QT, the standard linear framework of
unitary evolution applying as well to the Newtonian gravitational field as it does to electromagnetism, or to any
other standard field theory of physics. But it is another matter altogether if we insist on adopting the Einsteinian
perspective. Our standpoint here is that, owing to the enormous support that observations have now provided
for GR in macroscopic physics, one must try to respect the Einsteinian perspective as far as possible, in quantum
systems, especially in view of the foundational role that the principle of equivalence has for GR (see [4–6]).
Let us now replace the Earth with a small rock and try to imagine the quantum description of the physics
taking place in some small region in the neighborhood of the rock, where we consider that the rock can persist
for some while in a superposition of two different locations, and we label the respective states as ∣Lñ and ∣Rñ. We
are not now trying to compare the Einsteinian perspective with a Newtonian one, since our point of view will be
5
that the latter is not relevant to our current purposes, as we regard the Einsteinian perspective to be closer to
nature’s ways. Instead, we attempt to adopt an Einsteinian perspective for a quantum experiment in the
neighborhood of the rock that is in a quantum superposition of two locations, a∣Lñ + b∣Rñ. What we now have
to contend with is a superposition of two different Einsteinian wavefunctions for the quantum experiment, each
inhabiting a Hilbert space that will turn out to be incompatible with the other.
However, the preceding discussion does not hold exactly, because for each of the two components of the
superposition of rock locations ∣Lñ and ∣Rñ, the gravitational field of the rock is not completely uniform.
Nevertheless, we shall consider, first, that we are examining the nature of the wavefunction in some spatial
region that is small by comparison with the rock itself, so that we can assume that the gravitational field of each
component of the superposition can be taken to be spatially uniform to a good approximation. Adopting the
Einsteinian perspective, what we are now confronted with is the fact that the gravitational acceleration fields for
the two rock locations will be different from each other, so that the difference between these local acceleration
fields a and a¢ will lead to a difference between the Einsteinian vacuum for each rock location. In the
neighborhood of each spatial point, there will be a phase difference between the two states of our quantum
experiment that are in superposition:
ei ( 6 t ).
m
¯ 1 3 (a - a ¢)2 - tr¯.(a - a ¢)
(9)
1 3
Although the presence of the 6
-
t (a a ¹ a¢, the
a¢)2 term tells us, strictly speaking, that when
superposition is illegal (the states belonging to different Hilbert spaces), we adopt the view that this
incompatibility takes some time to cause trouble (as would eventually become manifest in divergent scalar
products, etc). The idea is that in order to resolve this incompatibility of Hilbert spaces, the superposed state
must eventually reduce to one alternative or the other, this incompatibility taking a while to build up. We
1
compare the troublesome term 6 t 3 (a - a¢)2 with the harmless one tr¯.(a - a¢), the latter (´m¯  ) being linear
in t and therefore not altering the vacuum but, in effect, just corresponds to incorporating the Newtonian
gravitational potential term into the Hamiltonian. We take the view that so long as t is small enough, the trouble
arising from t3 remains insignificantly small, where the measure of this smallness comes from comparing
1 3 1
6
t (a - a¢)2 with the harmless tr¯.(a - a¢).Thus, we take the coefficient 6 t 3 (a - a¢)2 as some kind of measure
of the propensity for the state to reduce, as a contribution to the overall reduction process. To get our measure of
total error, or ‘uncertainty’ Δ, we integrate this expression over the whole of (coordinate) 3-space:
D≔g ò (a - a¢)2d3r , (10)
= g ò (f - f¢)2d3r , (11)
= g ò [(f - f¢)].[f - f¢] d3r , (12)
= - g ò (f - f¢)(2f - 2f¢) d3r , (13)
(assuming appropriate falloff at spatial infinity), where γ is some positive constant, and f and f¢ are the
respective gravitational potentials for the states of the rock, where we are adopting a Newtonian approximation
for estimating the required error (a = -f and a¢ = -f¢). By Poisson’s formula (G being Newton’s
gravitational constant)
2f = 4pGr , (14)
we get
D = - 4pGg ò (f - f¢)(r - r¢) d3r , (15)
where ρ and r¢ are the respective mass densities of the two states, and we shall take these mass densities in the
sense of expectation values for the respective quantum states. Using the formula
r (r ¢)
f (r ) º - G ò ∣r - r ¢∣ d3r ¢, (16)
we obtain [3]:
[r (r ) - r ¢ (r )][r (r ¢) - r ¢ (r ¢)] 3 3
D = 4pG 2g òò ∣r - r ¢∣
d r d r ¢. (17)
Defining EG≔Δ/G, we have a quantity that is proportional to (depending on the value of γ) the
gravitational self-energy of the difference between the mass distributions of each of the two states
6
EG = 4pg ò (f - f¢)(r¢ - r) d3r (18)
[r (r ) - r ¢ (r )][r (r ¢) - r ¢ (r ¢)] 3 3
=4pGg òò ∣r - r ¢∣
d r d r ¢. (19)
The quantity Δ can be considered as a measure of a limitation to regarding the quantum superposition of the
rock a∣Lñ + b∣Rñ as being a stationary state, in accordance with principles of GR. Thus, we may take it to be a
reasonable inference from general-relativistic principles to regard Δ−1 as providing some kind of measure of a
limit to the length of time that the superposition might persist, the shorter that this time-scale should
presumably be, the larger the value Δ is found to have. This conclusion comes from considerations of GR, as
applied simply to the notion of a quantum superposition of states, no consideration of quantum dynamics being
involved except for the quantum notion of stationarity. Moreover, no actual measure of a time-scale for a
‘lifetime’ of the superposition has yet been provided by these considerations.
However, a significant clue is provided by Heisenberg’s time-energy uncertainty principle, where we note
that the quantity EG=Δ/G is an energy. In QT, the lifetime of an unstable particle is reciprocally related to an
energy uncertainty, which can be regarded as a manifestation of Heisenberg’s time-energy uncertainty principle.
In a similar way, we propose that EG should be treated as a fundamental uncertainty in the energy of the
superposition a∣Lñ + b∣Rñ. We then take the view that the ‘energy uncertainty’ EG is reciprocally related to a
lifetime of this superposition between the states ∣Lñ and ∣Rñ, and we can, therefore, regard the macroscopic
superposition as having an average lifetime τ that is roughly given by

t~ , (20)
EG
upon which time (on average) the state a∣Lñ + b∣Rñ spontaneously ‘decays’ into one or the other of ∣Lñ or ∣Rñ.
This decay process cannot be derived from considerations of QT alone, and instead we are assuming the
invocation of a higher theory from which QT and GR are limiting cases. The energy uncertainty in (20) arises due
to a conflict between the general-relativistic and quantum principles that are being appealed to in relation to the
description of stationary gravitational fields in quantum linear superposition, and there would be no need for
such an energy uncertainty if we had just assumed a Newtonian description of gravity without the philosophy of
GR. Similarly, if we had considered a contribution from the electromagnetic interaction of a (say charged) rock
in addition to its gravitational field, then there would be no conflict with QT from electromagnetic effects (there
being no equivalence principle for electromagnetism) and we would not be led to consider any energy
uncertainty from electromagnetic effects contributing to the decay of the state to either ∣Lñ or ∣Rñ.
Taking the analogy with particle decay further, we could assume that the probability of, a presumed
spontaneous, state reduction is an exponential function of time t:
Ps (t ) = e-t t = e-EG t , (21)
Pd (t ) = 1 - e-t t = 1 - e-EG t , (22)
where Ps(t) and Pd(t) are, respectively, the probability of survival and decay of the superposition state. Here we
are assuming, as with particle decay, that the decay is memoryless, which would seem the simplest assumption
for describing the decay process given that there is not, at present, a full theory. Equation (22) illustrates that it
should not be necessary to wait for a time τ=EG/ÿ in order to observe collapse of the wavefunction, and we can
estimate how often collapse will occur at a given time t without having to appeal to a full dynamical model.
A few clarifying remarks should be made on our above derivation of EG. We have considered a rock to be in a
superposition of two locations (similar to Schrödinger’s cat being in two locations). However, rather than a rock
(which we have assumed to be a continuous mass distribution), we could have considered a point-like object in
the superposition of two locations, which, naively, would be a superposition of delta-function wavefunctions in
position space. This would lead to an infinite value for EG. The problem is that a delta function is not a stationary
solution to the Schrödinger equation since the position wavefunction would instantly spread out (there is
infinite uncertainty in momentum). However, the stationary solution of the Schrödinger equation would be that
where the state is spread out over the Universe (there is infinite uncertainty in position), which is clearly not
satisfactory either. One might imagine that, in a full theory of GQSR, a spreading state keeps reducing by GQSR.
For now, a systematic procedure would be to modify the Schrödinger equation and use the Schrödinger–
Newton equation [56] to obtain stationary states [6, 57]. For a point-like object, the stationary solution is then a
‘smeared-out’ delta function, and the position is no longer defined at a point. To calculate EG for this state, we
could think of each ‘smeared-out’ delta function as representing point-like objects in a superposition of
continuous positions with differing weights, and follow the procedure outlined with equations (10)–(19). In the
continuous limit, this results in the same expression for EG as before, (19), with r (r ) and r¢(r ) representing the
average mass density of the defined stationary states, which would be m∣y (r )∣2 and m∣y¢ (r )∣2 in our case, where
ψ and y¢ are the normalized wavefunctions of the stationary states, and m is the mass of the object. The
7
Figure 2. On the left is the gravitational self-energy of the difference EG between displaced uniform spherical mass distributions
(divided by GM2R−1) against b/(2R), where R is the radius of the sphere, M is the mass, G is the gravitational constant, and b is the
distance between the centers of the sphere states. On the right is dEG/db (divided by GM2R−2) against b/(2R) for the same uniform
sphere.
superposition state should then decay into one of these stationary states as outlined in (20)–(22). For our rock,
we have assumed that the stationary states ∣Lñ and ∣Rñ should be close to the ‘classical’ rock states since we do not
see rocks spreading out across the Universe10. The mass profile r (r ) of the stationary state of the rock should
then be close to its classical mass distribution, which we have approximated as a continuous mass distribution.
The above calculation of EG, (10)–(19), has been carried out entirely within the framework of Newtonian
mechanics since we are considering the masses involved as being rather small and moving slowly, so that
general-relativistic corrections can be ignored to a very good approximation. We can, therefore, also just use
Schrödinger’s equation rather than, for example, the full framework of quantum field theory. However, the
principles of GR still apply to gravity, such as the equivalence principle, and the fact that EG is to be regarded as an
energy uncertainty is coming from considerations of general-relativistic principles and QT. The use of
Newtonian mechanics for calculating an expression for EG, while nevertheless retaining much of the basic
philosophy of Einstein’s theory, is perhaps most clearly expressed with the Newton–Cartan theory of gravity [4].
2.1. Gravitationally-induced state reduction for uniform spherical mass distributions

In order to get an impression of the role of EG, we can first think of the case of a solid spherical ball of radius R,
made from some uniform massive material of total mass M, where the ball is in a superposition of two locations,
differing by a distance b. The quantity EG in this case is (see, for example [6], and appendix A):
⎧ 6GM 2 ⎛ 5 5 3 1 ⎞
⎪ ⎜ l2 - l + l5⎟ if 0  l  1,
⎪ 5R ⎝ 3 4 6 ⎠
EG = ⎨ (23)
⎪ 6GM ⎜⎛ 2 5 ⎟⎞
⎪ 1- if l  1,
⎩ 5R ⎝ 12l ⎠
where λ≔b/(2R), and we have taken γ=1/(8π) in (18). See figure 2(a) for an illustration of EG, and figure 2(b)
for the rate of change of EG, with separation b. The only point of particular relevance is the fact that, for a
2
displacement such that the two spheres are touching, the value of EG is already nearly 3 of the value it would
reach for a displacement all the way out to infinity. Thus, for a uniformly solid body like this, we do not gain
much by considering displacements in which the two instances of the body are moved apart by a distance of
more than roughly its own diameter.
2.2. Gravitationally-induced state reduction for uniform spheroidal mass distributions

The above case of two uniform spherical mass distributions is that which is generically considered in the
literature, apart from a study of two uniform cubes at only very small displacement b [32]11. In this section, we
generalize to uniform spheroidal mass distributions and consider whether this can lead to an increase in EG, and
thus a faster rate of state reduction.
Now that we no longer have spherical symmetry, there are various configurations for the displacement of the
spheroids. Here we consider four possible configurations: (a) an oblate spheroid displaced along its symmetry
10
Rather than using the Schrödinger–Newton equation to obtain stationary states, we could adopt the procedure of factoring out, and
ignoring, the center of mass and only considering relative distances [6].
11
See also [42] for an attempt of large separations of uniform cylinders and plates, but which were implicitly assumed to be of infinite extent.
8
Figure 3. The different spheroidal superposition configurations considered in sections 2.2 and 3.1: (a) oblate and (b) prolate spheroids
displaced along their symmetry axis; and (c) oblate and (d) prolate spheroids displaced along an equatorial axis.
axis, (b) a prolate spheroid also displaced along its symmetry axis, (c) an oblate spheroid displaced along an
equatorial (semi-major) axis, and (d) a prolate spheroid also displaced along an equatorial (now semi-minor)
axis. See figure 3 for a visual illustration of all these configurations. Although analytical solutions can be obtained
for a general expression of EG for these cases (i.e. EG for a general equatorial or polar displacement b between the
spheroid states), the results are rather cumbersome and here we instead provide the results for the two cases (a)
and (b) in the limit of high ellipticity e (see appendix D for more detail). Defining ò as  ≔ 1 - e 2 , such that:
⎧ c a for an oblate spheroid (a > c ) ,
≔⎨ (24)
⎩ a c for a prolate spheroid (c > a) ,
where a and c are the equatorial and polar radii respectively12, then, when e≈1 we have   1. For the extreme
(  1) prolate (spindle-like) spheroid in configuration (b), we find that, to first order in ò:
⎧ 6GM 2
⎪
⎪ (A 4 - B ln  ) if 0  b  2c ,
EG = ⎨ 5c 2 (25)
⎪ 6GM (C 4 - ln  ) if b  2c ,
⎪
⎩ 5c
where
⎡ (1 + l ) 2 ⎤
A ≔ 2l [1 + ln (1 + l)] + l2 (20 - 21 ln 2) - l3 ⎢21 - 10 ln ⎥
⎣ 4l ⎦
⎡ 1 + l⎤
+ 77l4 - 2l5 ⎢35 + ln ⎥ + 20l ,
6 (26)
⎣ 4l ⎦
B ≔ 5l2 - 5l3 + l4, (27)
⎡ l2 ⎤
C ≔ 4 ln 2 - 11l - 4(1 - 5l2) coth-1 l + 2l3 ⎢(l2 - 5) ln - 1⎥ (28)
⎣ 1-l 2 ⎦
with λ now defined as λ≔b/(2c).
On the other hand, for the extreme (  1) oblate (pancake-like) spheroid in configuration (a), we find that
EG can be approximated by:
⎧ 6GM 2
⎪
⎪  if 0  b  2c ,
EG = ⎨ 5a (29)
⎪ 6GM 2 ( 4 -  ) if b  2c ,
⎪
⎩ 5a
12
Note that a and c are respectively the semi-major and semi-minor axes for an oblate spheroid but semi-minor and semi-major axes for the
prolate spheroid.
9
Figure 4. Both plots are of the gravitational self-energy of the difference between displaced uniform spherical and spheroidal mass
distributions, EG, against b/(2R), where R is the radius of the sphere and b is the distance between the centers of the states. All mass
distributions have the same total mass and volume. The solid line is for the spherical case, and the various dashed and dotted lines are
for the (a)–(d) spheroidal configurations illustrated in figure 3. The left plot is for ò=0.5 (ellipticity e=0.87), and the right plot is for
ò=0.01 (ellipticity e=0.999 95).
where A and C are defined as:

⎛1 p⎞ 5b 3 ⎜⎛ p 1 ⎟⎞ b 5 ⎜⎛ 9p 1⎞
 ≔ 5b 2 ⎜ + ⎟ - - + + ⎟, (30)
⎝ 2 ⎠  32 ⎝ 2 ⎠ 4 3 ⎝ 8 ⎠
1 + b2
 ≔ 2p + 11b - 2b 3 - 4(1 + 5b 2) cot-1 b + 2b 3 (5 + b 2) ln , (31)
b2
with β≔b/(2a). In figures 4(a) and (b), we provide EG for the sphere and the above four spheroidal cases (a)–(d)
when ò=0.5 (e=0.87) and ò=0.01 (e=0.999 95)13. In all cases we take the volume and mass (and so
density) of the objects to be the same. These figures illustrate that, for configurations (a) and (d), EG can be
greater than that of the sphere (with the same volume and density) at certain displacements, although, at infinite
displacement the sphere has the greatest EG. Indeed, at b = ¥, we find
6GM 2
EGsphere =
, (32)
5R
6GM 2 6GM 2
EGprolate = tanh-1 e º cosh-1  , (33)
5l 5l
6GM 2 -1 6GM 2 -1
EGoblate = sin e º sec  , (34)
5l 5l
for the three cases of sphere, prolate and oblate, irrespective of how they are displaced with respect to each other,
and l is the focal distance of the spheroids, which is a2 - c 2 for the oblate, and c 2 - a2 for the prolate
spheroid. Equations (32)–(34) are valid for any value of e and ò between 0 and 1, and no constraints are placed on
the size of volume and density. However, taking all the objects to have the same volume and mass, and assuming
low ellipticity e  1, we find
6GM 2 ⎛⎜ 1 4 64 6 ⎞
EGprolate » 1- e - e - ⎟, (35)
5R ⎝ 45 2835 ⎠
6GM ⎛⎜
2 1 4 62 6 ⎞
EGoblate » 1- e - e - ⎟, (36)
5R ⎝ 45 2835 ⎠
such that EG of the the prolate and oblate is always less than that of the sphere at infinite separation of the two
objects. In the same way, it is possible to also show that, for cases (b) and (c), EG is less than that of the sphere for
any value of b.
However, as stated above, this is not true for the other cases—it is possible for the value of EG for the
spheroidal configurations (a) and (d) to be greater than that of the sphere. This is further illustrated in
figures 5(a) and (b), which are contour plots of EGa) EGsphere and EGb) EGsphere for values of ò ranging from 0 to 1
(i.e. any ellipticity) and for the displacement b ranging from 0 to 12R. In particular, for small displacements it is
possible for the spheroidal EG to be a factor greater than the spherical case. Taking the oblate spheroid and sphere
to have the same volume and mass, then in the limit of   1 and b  R , we find, using (23) and (29), that
13
Formulas (25)–(29) are less reliable in the former case for configurations (a) and (b), and so we use general expressions for the plots.
10
Figure 5. On the left is a contour plot of the gravitational self-energy of the difference between displaced, uniform oblate spheroidal
mass distributions (displaced along their symmetry axes) over that of displaced, uniform spherical mass distributions i.e. EGa) EGsphere .
The x-axis is the distance b between the centers of the states divided by twice the radius of the sphere, and the y-axis is the value of ò, the
ratio of the semi-major to semi-minor axes, for the spheroids. The middle plot is as the left but using the equatorial-displaced prolate
spheroidal mass distributions rather than oblate ones i.e. EGd ) EGsphere , and the right plot is of EGa) EGd ) .
EGa) = 3 ´ EGsphere 14. Such a factor would already be approximately satisfied when ò≈0.01 and d≈0.01R,
which could be possible in near-future experiments. For example, b  R is satisfied in the proposed nano-
sphere experiment [58], such that, taking an oblate spheroid with ò≈0.01 rather than a sphere would increase
EG accordingly.
The findings here suggest that, for tests of the GQSR process, it may be preferable to use spheroidal rather
than spherical mass distributions in nano/micro-object experiments. Figure 5(c) also provides a comparison of
EGa) against EGd), illustrating that, although EGa) is generically larger than EGd), there is a certain region of parameter
space where the opposite is the case. Since a prolate and oblate spheroid can be used to approximate,
respectively, a rod or disc for high ellipticity, the self-energy of the difference of these objects could be used to
approximate that which could be observed in nano/micro-rod and -disc experiments. Note also that, if an
experiment were able to observe state reduction in disagreement with standard QT, then comparing the results
for different spheroidal geometries could be used to distinguish the GQSR considered here from other collapse
models since we have a direct prediction for how EG changes with just the ellipticity of the object (e=0 for a
sphere).
3. Testing with a BECs
In addition to nano/micro-object experiments, it may also be possible to test the GQSR process considered here
using BECs. Advantages of these systems include the fact that they are highly controllable systems and have large
coherence times due to their extremely low temperatures and high isolation from their environments. Certain
superposition states have also already been observed for these experiments, such as a coherent state separated by
over 0.5 m, and there are several suggested techniques for creating macroscopic superposition states (see
section 3.2).
In section 3.1, we calculate the self-energy of the difference between spherical and spheroidal BEC mass
distributions, which are created using harmonic trapping potentials. We then compare, in section 3.3, the
corresponding rate of state reduction to the decoherence rate of prominent channels of environmental
decoherence in BEC experiments, providing estimates for the values of experimental parameters, such as
temperature and scattering length, that would be required to test the GQSR process.
3.1. Gravitational self-energy of the difference between BEC mass distributions

In sections 2.1 and 2.2, we calculated EG for uniform spherical and spheroidal mass distributions. Although such
distributions can be created in nano/micro-object experiments, spherical and spheroidal BEC distributions are
generically non-uniform. This non-uniformity is due to the trapping potential that constrains the BEC. For
example, to create a spherical BEC, the potential is V (r ) = 12 mw 20 r 2 where m is the atomic mass, ω0 is the
trapping frequency, and r = x 2 + y 2 + z 2 is the radial distance from the center of the trap.
14
The reason that the spheroidal configurations (a) and (d) can have a value of EG that is greater than the spherical case is because these
objects are displaced along a semi-minor axis, which will be shorter than the radius of the corresponding sphere.
11
Taking the BEC to obey the time-independent Gross–Pitaevskii equation [59, 60]:
⎡ 2 2 ⎤
⎢-  + V (r ) + gn (r ) ⎥ y0 (r ) = my0 (r ) , (37)
⎣ 2m ⎦
where y0 (r ) is the BEC wavefunction, μ is the chemical potential of the condensate, g=4πÿ2as/m is the s-wave
interaction coupling constant with as the s-wave scattering length, and n (r ) = ∣y0 (r )∣2 is the condensate
number density; we can solve for the density of the BEC at zero temperature. Here we consider two analytical
limiting cases: (1) the Gaussian approximation where we assume that the wavefunction ψ0 is Gaussian, which is
exact for an ideal Bose gas when we neglect the interaction term, and can also be used in describing repulsive
BECs with low effective interaction strength, as well as attractive (as<0) BECs [61–66]; and (2) the Thomas–
Fermi (TF) approximation [67, 68], which is most appropriate for repulsive BECs (as>0) with large numbers of
atoms, where we neglect the kinetic term of (37) in comparison to the interaction term.
3.1.1. Density in the Gaussian approximation

In this section, we consider the Gaussian approximation for BECs, which is useful for characterizing BECs with
very low interaction strengths, as well as attractive interactions, as described above. When the interaction term is
entirely neglected in the Gross–Pitaevskii equation, we have an ideal Bose gas, and the solution for a general
1
harmonic trapping potential V (r ) = 2 m (w 2x x 2 + w 2y y 2 + w 2z z 2) is:
⎛ mw 0 ⎞3 4 - 1 m (wx x 2+ w y y 2 + wz z 2) 
y 0 (r ) = N⎜ ⎟ e 2 , (38)
⎝ p ⎠
where N is the number of condensate atoms, w0 ≔ (wx wy wz )1 3 is the geometric average of the trapping
1
frequencies, and the chemical potential is m = 2  (wx + wy + wz ). Taking a spherical trap
(ω0≔ωx=ωy=ωz), the mass density r0 (r ) ≔ mn (r ) of the condensate is then
4 sphere -r 2 R 02
rsphere (r ) = r e , (39)
0
3 p 0
where rsphere
0 ≔ M ((4 3) pR 03), with M=mN the total mass, and
R0 ≔  (mw 0) (40)
is the width of the Gaussian wavefunction (38). To describe a BEC with attractive forces we can use a variational
approach with the ansatz that the ground state is of Gaussian form but we now replace R0 in (38) with
R 0¢ ≔ aR R 0 , (41)
where αR is a dimensionless variational parameter which fixes the width of the condensate for a given interaction
strength [61–66]. The density for such a spherical BEC will then still be approximated by (39) but with R0
replaced with R 0¢, where R 0¢ < R 0 for a BEC with attractive forces.
To generate a spheroidal BEC, the harmonic trapping potential must be of the form
1 1
V (r ) = m [w r2 rr2 + w 2z z 2] º mw r2 [rr2 + l 2w z 2] , (42)
2 2
where rr = x 2 + y 2 is the radial cylindrical coordinate, ωr is the radial trapping frequency, ωz is the axial
trapping frequency, and λω≔ωz/ωr (which is sometimes referred to as the ‘asymmetry parameter’). For a
prolate spheroid (often called a ‘cigar’ BEC), λω<0, whereas, for an oblate spheroid (often called a ‘pancake’
BEC), λω>0. In the Gaussian approximation, the density of the BEC is given by
4 spheroid -rr2 a 0¢ 2 - z 2 c 0¢ 2
rspheroid (r ) = r e , (43)
0
3 p 0
where rspheroid
0 ≔ M ((4 3) pa 0¢ 2 c ¢0), c ¢0 ≔ ac c 0 and a ¢0 = aa a 0, with c 0 ≔  (mwz ) and
a 0 ≔  (mwr ) . Similar to the spherical case, the factors αa and αc control the size of the condensate for the
given interaction strength.
For a BEC with attractive interactions, the condensate becomes unstable if the number of atoms exceeds a
critical value. For a harmonic trap at zero temperature, this critical value can be estimated as [69]
s
Nc » kc 0 , (44)
∣as∣
where s0 is the width of the ground state Gaussian wavefunction of an atom in a parabolic potential well
 (mw0) , with w0 ≔ (wx wy wz )1 3, and kc is a constant, which is estimated as ≈0.6 for a single-well spherical
trap. See [70] for values of kc for a double-well trap and, for example [71], for an analytical expression for kc. Note
that (44) is not applicable with the TF approximation since the kinetic term is required to stabilize the
system here.
12
Figure 6. Three-dimensional plots of the condensate density in the Thomas–Fermi approximation. From left to right, there is a
spherical BEC, a prolate spheroidal BEC and an oblate spheroidal BEC. Different shaded areas illustrate the fact that the density
continuously varies, being greatest in the center, and with surfaces of constant density being similar-shaped spheroidal surfaces.
3.1.2. Density in the TF approximation

In this section, we consider the TF approximation for BECs, which is useful for characterizing BECs with strong
repulsive interactions, as described in section 3.1 above. Assuming a spherical trap and that the kinetic term can
be neglected in comparison to the interaction term, the solution ψ0 of the Gross–Pitaevskii equation can be used
to find the mass density of the BEC in this TF approximation:
5 sphere
rsphere
0 (r ) = r ( 1 - r 2 R 2) , (45)
2 0
where R the radius of the spherical BEC (we assume r (r ) is vanishing here), rsphere
0 ≔ M ((4 3) pR3), and M the
total mass of the condensate:
2p p R
M ≔ mN = ò0 ò0 ò0 r (r ) r 2 sin q dr dq df. (46)
In terms of experimental parameters, R is given by
R = (15Nas R 04 )1 5 , (47)
where R0 is defined in the previous section. The density of the BEC sphere is illustrated in figure 6(a) where
contours represent surfaces of constant density, which are spherical surfaces. In contrast to the Gaussian
approximation, the Bose gas will clearly be of a larger size in this strongly, repulsive interaction regime.
The density function for a spheroidal BEC in the TF approximation can be found by inserting the potential
(42) into the Gross–Pitaevskii equation (37), and dropping the kinetic term, to obtain:
5 spheroid
rspheroid
0 (r ) = r (1 - rr2 a 2 - z 2 c 2) , (48)
2 0
where rspheroid
0 ≔ M ((4 3) pa2c ). This density distribution is illustrated in figures 6(b) and (c) for a prolate
(a<c) and oblate (a>c) spheroid where contours are surfaces of constant density, which are similar-shaped
spheroidal surfaces. In terms of experimental parameters, the equatorial and polar radii are:
a = (15Nas a 04 l w )1 5 , (49)
c = a lw, (50)
where a0 is defined in the previous section for the Gaussian approximation. For the TF approximation to be very
good, we require that [66]:
s0
N . (51)
as
Furthermore, the TF approximation is less accurate near the boundaries of the condensate. Here the density
abruptly vanishes in the TF approximation, but in reality there is a more gradual decrease such that the
condensate wavefunction will tend to, but never actually reach, zero [72].
3.1.3. Self-energy of the difference between spherical BECs

Now that we have mass distributions for BEC spheres and spheroids, we can determine the value of EG for the
different shapes and density functions using (18) or (19). An approach to this is discussed in appendices B–F
where we also calculate the gravitational potential of these objects. For the spherical BEC in the Gaussian
approximation (see appendix C), we find
13
Figure 7. On the left is the gravitational self-energy of the difference between displaced spherical BECs (in the TF approximation) and
displaced uniform spheres, EG (GM 2R-1), against b/(2R) where R is the radius of the spheres, M is their mass and b is the distance
between the centers of the sphere states. On the right is EG/(GM2R−1) against b of spherical 133Cs BECs in the TF and Gaussian
approximations with 106 atoms, the same trapping frequency w0 = 100 Hz , and with the standard scattering length in the former
regime, but with zero scattering in the latter so that we have an ideal BEC in that case.
GM 2 ⎛ 2 1 ⎞
EG = ⎜ - erf ( 2 l 0) ⎟ , (52)
R 0¢ ⎝ p 2l 0 ⎠
where we have defined λ0≔b/(2R′0) with R 0¢ given by (41). In contrast, in the TF regime, we obtain (see
appendix B):
⎧ 10GM 2 ⎛ 21 4 7 3 1 9⎟⎞
⎪ ⎜2l2 - l + l5 - l7 + l if 0  l  1,
⎪ 7R ⎝ 5 2 4 10 ⎠
EG = ⎨ (53)
⎪ 10GM 2 ⎜⎛ 7 ⎟⎞
⎪ 1- if l  1,
⎩ 7R ⎝ 20l ⎠
where λ≔b/(2R) and R is given by (47).
These self-energy differences are illustrated in figure 7. For the same total mass and volume (and so average
density), EG of a spherical BEC in the TF regime is always greater than that of a uniform one. This is exemplified
by figure 7(a) and is due to the fact that the density is more constrained towards the center. The fact that EG is
different despite the potential outside a non-uniform sphere being the same as a uniform sphere, could provide a
further possibility for distinguishing the state reduction process considered here to other models.
In figure 7(b), we plot EG of a spherical BEC in the TF regime against the Gaussian regime for a 133Cs BEC
with 106 atoms, the same trapping frequency w0 = 100 Hz , and with the standard scattering length in the
former regime, but with zero scattering in the latter so that we have an ideal BEC. For all values of b, the Gaussian
EG is always greater than the TF case. This is principally due to R0 being much smaller than R in this case, with the
gap increasing as N increases. Therefore, with attractive interactions, we would expect EG to increase further
under the condition that all other BEC parameters, apart from the scattering length, stay the same.
3.1.4. Self-energy of the difference between spheroidal BECs

The generic value of EG for spheroidal BECs is more complicated (see appendices E and F) and here we just
provide the expression for configuration (b) in figure 3 (the symmetry-axis displaced prolate) for the TF regime
in the limit of high ellipticity (i.e. to first order in ò, which is defined by (24)):
⎧ 10GM 2
⎪ 7a (A 24 - B ln  ) if 0  l  1,
⎪
EG = ⎨ (54)
⎪ 10GM 2 (C 1536 - ln  ) if l  1,
⎪
⎩ 7a
where λ≔b/(2c) and
A ≔ 144l2 (ln 2 - 1) - 168l4 (3 ln 2 - 4) - 378l5 + 133l7 - 25l9, (55)
B ≔ 10(6l2 - 21l4 + 21l6 - 6l7 + l9) , (56)
14
Figure 8. Both plots are of the gravitational self-energy of the difference between displaced spherical and spheroidal BEC mass
distributions (in the TF regime), EG, against b/(2R), where R is the radius of the spheres, M is their mass and b is the distance between
the centers of the states. All mass distributions have the same total mass and volume. The solid line is for the spherical case, and the
various dashed and dotted lines are for the (a)–(d) spheroidal configurations illustrated in figure 3. The left plot is for ò=0.5
(ellipticity e=0.87), and the right plot is for ò=0.01 and (ellipticity e=0.999 95).
C ≔ 6g coth-1(1 - 2l) - 6k coth-1(1 + 2l)

- 768(1 - 6l2 + 21l4) coth-1 l
- 64(12l7 - 66l5 - 284l3 + 81l - 24 ln 2)
l2 - 1
- 315l (16l2 - 3) ln (57)
l2
with
g ≔ (1 - 2l)3 [128 + l (2l [207 + 4l (2l (l + 3)(2l - 3))] + 453)] , (58)
k ≔ (1 + 2l)3 [128 + l (2l [207 + 4l (2l (l - 3)(2l + 3))] - 453)]. (59)

Assuming the TF regime, the value of EG for the four configurations (a)–(d) (see figure 3) of BEC spheroids is
plotted in figures 8(a) and (b) against the BEC sphere case for ò=0.5 and ò=0.01. As in the uniform case, the
value of EG for configurations (b) and (c) is always less than that of a BEC sphere, whereas, the other spheroidal
configurations can have larger EG values at certain displacements and ellipticity values. However, again, the
sphere always has the greatest EG at infinity—the values of EG in the BEC TF case compared to the uniform case
(32)–(34) are just 25/21≈1.2 larger for each object.
In figures 9(a)–(c) we compare EG of the BEC sphere with a spheroidal BEC in configuration (a), the BEC
sphere with a spheroidal BEC in configuration (d), and the spheroidal configuration (a) with (d), for all BECs in
the TF regime and assuming the same volume and density for the different objects. These are very similar to the
uniform cases 5(a), (b) and illustrate again that it may be preferable to use spheroidal rather than spherical
objects for testing GQSR.
In figure 10, we also plot spherical and spheroidal configurations (a) and (b) for BECs in the Gaussian
approximation with ò=0.75 (e≈0.7) and displacement b from zero to 10R. As in the TF approximation, the
oblate case can have a value of EG that is greater than the spherical case. Note that for high values of ellipticity, it is
possible to enter a quasi-one or two dimensional regime where the quantum and thermal motion can be frozen
in two or one dimensions (see e.g. [73]). This is to be distinguished from the case when the BEC looks lower
dimensional from only a geometrical point of view but locally has a three-dimensional character. In certain
configurations, it can be a good approximation to neglect the spatial dependence of the density in one or two
dimensions, potentially simplifying the calculation of EG for such BEC states.
3.1.5. Self-energy difference in BEC experiments

Now that we have calculated EG for mass distributions that can be generated by BEC experiments, let us consider
what sort of experimental parameters might be required to test the gravitationally-induced state reduction
model. Taking a spherical BEC for simplicity, when the separation of the two BEC states is of the order of their
(effective) diameter, the value of EG is of the order (assuming γ=1/(8π) in (18)):
Gm 2N 2
EG ~ . (60)
R
For example, in the TF approximation, when two spherical BEC states are touching, the value of EG is found
to be:
15
Figure 9. On the left is a contour plot of the gravitational self-energy of the difference between displaced oblate BECs (displaced along
the symmetry axes) over the that of displaced BEC spheres, EGa) EGsphere , in the TF regime. The x-axis is the distance b between the
centers of the states divided by two times the radius R, and the y-axis is the value of ò for the spheroid. The middle plot is as the left but
with equatorial displaced prolate BECs rather than oblate ones i.e. EGc) EGsphere , and the right plot is of EGa) EGc) for BECs in the TF
regime.
13Gm 2N 2
EG = . (61)
14R
Using this expression for EG, for a 133Cs BEC of radius 1 μm, we would need around 4×109 atoms in each
state for a collapse lifetime of around 2 s. In (60), there is a stronger dependence on the number of atoms N than
on the radius R, and so N=4×1010 and R = 0.1 mm would also cause the same collapse rate, while
potentially being more experimentally feasible due to the reduced density (see section 3.3). On the other hand, if,
for example, γ=8π were found to be more appropriate in (18), then a collapse time of 2 s would occur when
N≈109 and R = 0.1 mm or N≈108 and R = 1 mm . Allowing for smaller timescales than 2 s would also
improve the required values for N and R.
Although such numbers of atoms have not been achieved yet for a 133Cs BEC experiment, over 109 atoms
were reported for a hydrogen BEC in 1998 [74], and over 108 atoms for a 23Na BEC in 2006 [75] (also see [76] for
a 23Na BEC of over 107 atoms in 2004). These were single-well rather than double-well BECs, and so not large
macroscopic superposition states. However, in sections 3.2 and 3.3 we discuss how large macroscopic states,
such as NOON states, or approximations to these, could be generated in double-well BECs, and what sort of
experimental parameters would be required in order for GQSR to be seen in the presence of environmental
decoherence.
3.2. Generating macroscopic superposition states with double-well BECs

A double-well BEC can, in principle, be used to create a macroscopic superposition state (see, for example,
[37–40, 77–83]). The full Hamiltonian of this system is:
1
ò d3r Yˆ (r ) Hˆ DW Yˆ (r ) + 2 g ò d3r Yˆ (r ) Yˆ (r ) Yˆ (r ) Yˆ (r ),
† † †
Hˆ = (62)
where
[Y ˆ †(r ¢)] = d (r - r ¢) ;
ˆ (r ) , Y (63)
⎡ 2 2 ⎤
Hˆ DW ≔ ⎢ -  + VDW (r )⎥ ; (64)
⎣ 2m ⎦
VDW is the particular double-well potential, which we take to be symmetric; and we have assumed that the
inter-atomic interaction can be well-approximated by two-body s-wave scattering.
Assuming that the energy barrier between the two wells is large enough, we make the ansatz that the BEC can
be described as consisting of atoms that occupy a condensed state ∣yLñ of the left well, or a condensed state ∣yRñ of
the right well, which are taken to be approximately orthogonal, áyL∣yRñ » 0. That is, we assume that Ŷ can be
approximated by:
Y
ˆ (r , t ) = yL (r , t ) aˆL (t ) + yR (r , t ) aˆR (t ) , (65)
where aˆL and aˆR are the annihilation operators for the states ∣yñL and ∣yñR , which have localized wavefunctions
ψL and ψR. These obey the usual bosonic commutation rules:
16
Figure 10. The gravitational self-energy of the difference between displaced spherical and spheroidal BEC mass distributions, EG, in
the Gaussian regime, against λ=b/(2R) where R is the radius of the sphere, M is the mass and b is the distance between the centers of
the states. All mass distributions have the same total mass and volume, and the spheroidal BECs have ò=0.75. The solid blue line is
for the sphere, and the two dashed lines are for the spheroidal configurations (a) and (b).
[aˆ i , aˆ j†] = dij , [aˆ i , aˆ j ] = 0, (66)

where i , j = L, R . The wavefunctions ψL and ψR are assumed to have negligible overlap such that they are
approximately orthogonal:
ò dry*i (r , t ) yj (r , t ) » dij , (67)
and the operator for the total number of particles, which is conserved, is given by
ò dr YY
†
Nˆ ≔ ˆˆ = aˆL† aˆL + aˆR† aˆR. (68)
In the nonlinear tight-binding approximation [84], an adiabatic approximation is applied where ψL and ψR
are real and their spatial profiles adapt adiabatically to the instantaneous number of particles. In this tight-
binding approximation, the wavefunctions depend implicitly on time t through the number of particles in each
well Ni = áaî† aˆ iñ, i.e. yi (r , t ) = yi (r , Ni (t )). In our large separation approximation, and assuming
macroscopic occupation of the two states, the wavefunctions ψL and ψR (when multiplied by NL and NR )
obey, to a good approximation, solutions of the Gross–Pitaevskii equation (37) with potential VDW [84] (for,
alternatively, a full variational approach, see [85])15.
Plugging our ansatz (65) into the Hamiltonian (62), we obtain
Hˆ = Hˆ1 + Hˆ 2, (69)
where
Hˆ1 ≔ x L aˆL† aˆL + x R aˆR† aˆR + JLR (aˆL† aˆR + aˆR† aˆL ) , (70)
Hˆ 2 ≔ UL aˆL† 2 aˆL2 + UR aˆR† 2 aˆR2 + 4ULRLR aˆL† aˆR† aˆL aˆR
+ 2ULLLR (aˆL† 2 aˆL aˆR + h.c.) + 2URRRL (aˆR† 2 aˆR aˆL + h.c.)
+ ULLRR (aˆL† 2 aˆR† 2 + h.c.) , (71)
with
ò d3ryL Hˆ DW yL, xR ≔ ò d3ryR Hˆ DW yR,

xL ≔ (72)
JLR ≔ ò d3ryL Hˆ DW yR, UL ≔ g ò d3ry 4L , UR ≔ g ò d3ry R4 , (73)
ULRLR ≔ g ò d3ry 2L y 2R, ULLRR ≔ g ò d3ry 2L y 2R, (74)
ULLLR ≔ g ò d3ry 2L yL yR, URRRL ≔ g ò d3ry R2 yR yL, (75)
and we are taking ψL and ψR to be real. The Hamiltonian (69) can be shown to contain an analytic solution [86].
It can also be approximated by an extended two-mode Bose–Hubbard model in the nonlinear tight-binding
15
In section 3.1, we used single-well potentials to determine the density and shape of the two superposed states. This is a good
approximation at larger separations, but at smaller separations, as the states start to overlap further, the full character of the double-well
potential will become more important, modifying the density, and the two-mode approximation discussed here will loose its validity.
However, when comparing to environmental decoherence in section 3.3 we work with a rate of state reduction that is most appropriate when
the states are not overlapping.
17
approximation [84]. In the case that the spatial profile of ψL and ψR is approximately independent of the number
of particles in each well (the standard tight-binding approximation), it can be further approximated with the
two-mode version of the Bose–Hubbard model [73, 84, 87–89]:
1
Hˆ = ELR (aˆL† aˆR + aˆR† aˆL ) + U (aˆL† 2 aˆL2 + aˆR† 2 aˆR2) , (76)
2
where U=UL; we have assumed UL=UR; we have removed terms proportional to the number operator N̂
since this commutes with H; ˆ and we have neglected any atomic collisions in the overlapping region of the two
modes. Here the JLR terms are responsible for quantum tunneling between the two wells, and the U terms are the
atom-atom interactions within each well.
There have been several proposals for generating a macroscopic superposition state (Schrödinger cat state)
in a double-well BEC. For example, in [37, 38] it is considered that, starting from a repulsive BEC, if the
interaction strength g is varied adiabatically to a negative value (using a Feshbach resonance), then a cat state can
be prepared. This occurs because a NOON state is the ground state of the two-mode Bose–Hubbard model (76)
with strong attractive interactions. In [39], it is shown that the ground state becomes degenerate with the first
excited state in this case, such that there needs to be an exponentially long time to create an exact NOON state.
However, in [90] it was found that, for realistic parameters and time-scales, an approximate NOON state can be
generated with a smooth change in the scattering length. An alternative to this method is to use a Feshbach
resonance to make a sudden change in the scattering length [39]. For example, a repulsive BEC could be
prepared in a single-well and then the tunneling barrier is raised adiabatically to divide the well into two equal
parts (forming a so-called ‘coherent’ state [73] when neglecting interactions), then a Feshbach resonance is used
to suddenly switch g from a positive to a negative value such that the state dynamically evolves to a large
macroscopic superposition state.
Another possibility would be to set the scattering length to zero and drive the system to an upper excited
state, then slowly increase the interactions (keeping them repulsive) while, at the same time, decreasing the inter-
well tunneling to zero [40]. This method is possible since a NOON state is the upper energy state of the repulsive
Bose–Hubbard model, and has the advantage that the BEC does not need to move to an attractive state, which
can become unstable [66]. Rather than modifying the scattering length, a cat state could also be generated by
manipulating the BEC with an external laser [77, 80, 81]. For example, in [81], it is suggested that a far off-
resonance laser could be used to imprint a π-phase on one of the wells such that the quantum wavepacket
bifurcates. The tunneling barrier is then raised to halt the evolution and fix the cat state.
Once a macroscopic superposition state, such as a NOON state, has been prepared, we need to make sure
that we can experimentally distinguish it from a classical statistical mixture. For a double-well BEC, one
possibility is to look for a a non-zero Nth-order correlation áaˆL† N aˆRN ñ [90, 91]. For an exact NOON state,
∣NOONñ, where we have a superposition of N particles in the left-hand state ∣yLñ and N particles in the right-
hand state ∣yRñ, which we write as (∣N 0ñ + ∣0N ñ) 2 , we have
N!
áNOON∣aˆL† N aˆRN ∣NOONñ = , (77)
2
whereas, for a statistical mixture, we have zero. Experimental methods for measuring áaˆL† N aˆRN ñ in double-well
BECs can be found in [90, 91].
As well as being able to distinguish a NOON state from a statistical mixture, we also need need to make sure
that we can experimentally distinguish the GQSR process from environmental decoherence. That is, we would
ideally like the objective collapse rate to be greater than the rate of environmental decoherence. Given an initial
NOON state, ∣NOONñ, we can use (21), (22) to write down the density operator for the state under the process of
GQSR:
1 -E G t  [∣N 0ñ
rˆ (t ) = e + ∣0N ñ][áN 0∣ +á0N∣] (78)
2
1
+ (1 - e-EG t  )[∣N 0ñáN 0∣ + ∣0N ñá0N∣]. (79)
2
In terms of the annihilation operators of the left and right states, aˆL and aˆR , we have
1
∣NOONñ = (aˆL† N + aˆR† N )∣0ñ , (80)
2N!
such that the N-particle correlation áaˆL† N aˆRN ñ evolves in time as
áaˆL† N aˆRN ñ (t ) = e-EG t  áaˆ † N aˆ N ñ ,
L R 0 (81)
where áaˆL† N aˆRN ñ0 is given by (77). We now compare this evolution of the N-particle correlation to that imposed
by various environmental decoherence channels in double-well BECs.
18
3.3. Environmental decoherence

There are several channels of environmental decoherence in BEC systems. Here we concentrate on the
prominent ones due to three-body recombination, interactions with the thermal cloud, and interactions with
foreign atoms. We also briefly discuss noise due to the trapping potential.
3.3.1. Three-body recombination

Three-body recombination is the process where three atoms in the condensate collide to form a molecule (atom-
atom bound state) and a single atom, which can both then escape the trap. This process often limits the lifetime
and size of condensates. In [92], a master equation was derived for three-body loss in the Born–Markov
approximation and for a BEC with repulsive interactions. Since this is a three-body problem, this master
equation is of the following form for a double-well BEC in the two-mode approximation [93]:
drˆ (t ) i 1
= - [Hˆ , rˆ (t )] + g3 å [aˆk3 rˆ (t ) aˆk† 3 - {aˆk† 3 aˆk3, rˆ (t )}] , (82)
dt  k = L, R 2
where
K3
g3 ≔
72 ò d3x∣yL,R (r )∣6 (83)
K3 2
= n , (84)
72
with n the condensate number density and K3 the recombination event rate, which can be approximated as [94]:
 4
K3 = 23 as . (85)
m
The N-particle correlation for a NOON state under this master equation is then [93]:
áaˆL† N aˆRN ñ (t ) = e-g3 Nt áaˆL† N aˆRN ñ0 . (86)
Comparing to the gravitationally-induced collapse rate for a NOON state (81), we require that
EG   g3 N. (87)
Taking EG to be of the form (60) for simplicity, we need
Gm 2N 23 4 2 2
 as  n . (88)
R 72m
Assuming, for example, a 133Cs BEC with N∼4×109 and R∼10 μm (such that τ∼10 s), then to obtain
a three-body recombination rate that is ten times slower in the TF regime, we would need to utilize a Feshbach
resonance in order to reduce the scattering length by approximately four orders of magnitude (and we take the
trapping frequency to be around 300 Hz ). Increasing the number of atoms to 4×1010 instead, then a radius
R ~ 0.1 mm (trap frequency 10 Hz ) and a reduction in the scattering length by three orders of magnitude
would be enough. Assuming instead a Gaussian approximation, then in order to operate in this regime, the
trapping frequency and/or scattering length need to be reduced further, which only lowers the decoherence rate.
Note that, if it were found to be more appropriate to take γ=8π rather than γ=1/(8π) in (18), then this would
increase EG by almost three orders of magnitude, significantly improving the experimental feasibility. For
example, in this case we could have around 6×108 atoms and R = 0.1 mm , with the interaction strength
reduced by two orders of magnitude.
In several of the proposals to create a NOON state that were discussed in section 3.2, the (attractive or
repulsive) interaction strength is modified. For example, in [40], the repulsive interaction strength is increased
while the inter-well tunneling is reduced to zero. In this case, once the NOON state is prepared (or a good
approximation to one) the interaction strength would then likely have to be reduced in order to prolong the
coherence of, at least an approximation to, the state in light of three-body interactions. Alternatively, other
methods could be employed to inhibit three-body decay, such as using an external laser [95, 96] or lowering the
effective dimensionality of the BEC [97–99]. Here we have assumed a three dimensional BEC throughout.
However, although condensation cannot occur in one or two dimensional uniform systems, with a harmonic
trap it is possible to have condensation in an ideal Bose gas in two dimensions, and macroscopic occupation of
the lowest energy state in one dimension at finite temperatures [66]. These lower dimensional systems can be
achieved when one or two of the harmonic trapping frequencies are much higher than the others, i.e. in the limit
of a very flat oblate spheroid or thin prolate spheroid. Unlike in three dimensions, in a Bose gas of one or two
dimensions, the three-body decay can become temperature dependent and vanishing at absolute zero.
Therefore, reducing the effective dimensionality of the trap, and operating at low temperatures may be another
possibility for inhibiting decoherence due to three-body decay.
19
As stated in section 3.1.1, for a BEC with attractive interactions, the condensate becomes unstable if the
number of atoms exceeds a critical value Nc, which for a spherical trap at zero temperature is given by (44).
Therefore, if a NOON state is formed with an attractive BEC, the number of atoms N needs to be lower than Nc
[73]. One possibility is to increase Nc by lowering the scattering length. However, an exact NOON state from this
method is only obtained in the limit of infinite attractive interactions [90]. Therefore, a lower as would likely lead
to an approximation to a NOON state, for which we would have to calculate the rate of GQSR, and will be the
concern of future work. It may instead be preferable to utilize one of the methods outlined in section 3.3 that
generates a NOON state with a repulsive BEC.
3.3.2. Thermal cloud interactions

Interactions between the condensate atoms and atoms in the thermal cloud (the noncondensed atoms due to a
finite temperature) will also lead to decoherence of a NOON state [79, 100]. These interactions can be of three
types: single particle loss C + NC  NC + NC , two particle loss C + C  NC + NC , and scattering
C + NC  C + NC (together with the opposite processes) [101]. In [100], assuming a Born–Markov and
standard tight-binding approximation, a quantum master equation was derived for the scattering process, where
the thermal cloud environment can learn the quantum state of the condensate system. This is of the form:
drˆ (t ) i
= - [Hˆ , rˆ (t )] - gt [aˆL† aˆL - aˆR† aˆR , [aˆL† aˆL - aˆR† aˆR , rˆ (t )]] , (89)
dt 
where
gt ≔ 64p 4as2 n th vt , (90)
with vt ≔ 2kB T m being the thermal velocity of the atoms in the thermal cloud; T the temperature; and nth
the thermal cloud number density, which can be approximated by:
e-m kB T ⎛ kB T ⎞3
n th = ⎜ ⎟ , (91)
Vth ⎝ w ⎠
4 3
Vth ≔ pR th , (92)
3
2kB T
Rth ≔, (93)
mw 2
where w ≔ (wx wy wz )1 3 and ωx, y, z are the various harmonic trapping frequencies. In [102, 103], a master
equation was derived for the scattering of thermal particles off a single condensate within the TF regime. The rate
γt in this case becomes [103]:
4kB Tm 4TF
gt = em kB T , (94)
9p 4 5w 4N 2
where μ is the chemical potential of the non-condensed cloud, we have assume a spherical trapping potential, and
1
m TF = w (15Na R 0 )2 5 (95)
2
is the chemical potential of a spherical BEC in the TF regime.

The N-particle correlation for a NOON state under the master equation (89) is:
áaˆL† N aˆRN ñ (t ) = e-gt N t áaˆL† N aˆRN ñ0 .

2
(96)
Taking EG to be of the form (60), we require

Gm 2
 gt . (97)
R
Assuming a Gaussian 133Cs BEC with the interaction strength reduced by six orders of magnitude and
4×109 atoms, as considered as a possibility in the previous section, we would need to increase the trapping
potential so that the radius is of order 1 mm , and operate at a temperature T  1 nK . A temperature of 0.5 nK
has been achieved for a low-density 23Na BEC in a single-well potential [104]. If, on the other hand, we want to
work in the TF regime, then more challenging experimental parameters appear to be necessary. For example,
environmental decoherence would be five times slower than collapse when there is around 4×1011 atoms in a
condensate of radius of 0.1 mm , the interaction strength is reduced by a further two orders of magnitude as
compared to the TF regime considered in the previous section, and the temperature is T  0.1 nK . Therefore, as
suggested in the previous section, if a NOON state is prepared by changing the interaction strength then, to
20
prolong the lifetime of the state, it would be preferable to subsequently significantly reduce the interaction
strength so that we are working with an approximately ideal gas.
The temperature bound and/or the condensate radius can be increased in the Gaussian approximation by
further lowering the interaction strength and, at the same time, either keeping the total atom number the same
or increasing it. Also, trap engineering and symmetrization of the environment would help [100]. However, it is
possible that a Born–Markov approximation is not appropriate for the description of thermal cloud
decoherence in this case, such that the estimates provided here would be inaccurate [39]. Furthermore, as
discussed in the previous section, it is possible that these values could be improved if we took γ=8π rather than
γ=1/(8π) in (18). For example, in this case it would be possible to lower the total atom number to 108 while
keeping the rest of the parameters the same.
3.3.3. Foreign atom interactions

Decoherence can also occur due to interactions with background gas particles at room temperature16. These
foreign particles collide with the condensate atoms and can either cause them to leave the trap entirely or heat up
[105]. Assuming that all collisions cause atoms to leave the condensate, a master equation for this process was
derived in [106] assuming a Born–Markov approximation. Since this is a one-body process, this master equation
is of the form:
drˆ (t ) i 1 †
dt
= - [Hˆ , rˆ (t )] + gf

å [aˆk rˆ (t ) aˆk† - {aˆ aˆk , rˆ (t )}].
2 k
(98)
k = L, R
A rough estimate of the rate γfcan be calculated assuming only s-wave scattering [106]:
1
gt ~ s (u f ) n f u f , (99)
6
where nf is the number density of foreign atoms, uf is their average velocity, and s (uf ) is the cross-section for the
process. Using kinetic theory, we can approximate these quantities by [105]:
⎛ C ⎞2 5
uf = 2kB T m f , n f = P (kB T ) , sf = 7.57(1.033)2 ⎜ 6
⎟ , (100)
⎝ u f ⎠
where P is the pressure of the vacuum chamber and C6 is the Van der Waals constants from the Van der Waals
potential V (r ) = -C6 r 6. Various interaction cross-sections have been calculated for these processes in [105]
assuming T is room temperature.
The N-particle correlation for a NOON state under the master equation (98) is then:
áaˆL† N aˆRN ñ (t ) = e-gf Nt áaˆL† N aˆRN ñ0 , (101)
so that we require
Gm 2N
 gf . (102)
R
Note that the environmental decoherence rate here is equal to the atomic loss rate. This is because, for
an exact NOON state, the loss of one atom means that the density operator is now a mixture of the states
∣(N - 1) 0ñ and ∣0 (N - 1)ñ, neither of which is itself a NOON state [39]. Therefore, one scattering event is
enough to collapse the NOON state into all-left or all-right states. However, in practice it is unlikely that an
exact NOON state will be formed, and instead a more general macroscopic superposition state, such as
∣yñ = (∣N 10, 9N 10ñ + ∣9N 10, N 10ñ) 2 , would be more probable. Indeed, these type of states would
be formed in the process where the scattering length is suddenly changed to a negative value [39]. Single-atom
losses for these states would still result in similarly ‘good’ macroscopic superposition states, such that the effect
of scattering a foreign atom may not have a significant detrimental effect [39]. Of course we also need to
determine how the GQSR rate might change for the approximate NOON states, and this will be the concern
of future work.
3.3.4. Decoherence from the trapping potential

Optical, magnetic or opto-magnetic traps can be used for the implementation of the double-well potential.
These electromagnetic traps can also cause decoherence of a NOON state. For example, in an optical trap,
decoherence of NOON states can come from spontaneously scattered/diffracted photons [39, 107], and phase
noise of the laser beam [108]. However, to generate the required large numbers of atoms, it is likely that a pure
magnetic trap should be used, such as that in [109, 110]. Surprisingly, decoherence of macroscopic
16
Here we assume the background gases operate at room temperature, but it is also possible that the vacuum chamber could be cryogenically
cooled.
21
superposition states due to fluctuations of a magnetic field has been found to be independent of the total particle
number [111], improving the feasibility of generating such states.
4. Conclusions
We have investigated testing a unified theory of GR and QT with a BEC. In particular, we have considered testing
a proposal for a unified theory that is based on the ‘gravitizing QT’ approach rather than the conventional
‘quantizing gravity’ approach. In section 2, we examined how, if we attempt to make QT consistent with the
equivalence principle of GR, then a possible resolution is to consider making modifications to QT that would
lead to a violation of the superposition principle of QT where the degree of violation is dependent on the
gravitational interaction and configuration of the system. Since this increases for more massive systems, the
proposal can provide an objective state reduction that is consistent with current experiments, thus resolving the
measurement problem of QT, which would, on other hand, be expected to persist for the ‘quantizing gravity’
approach and conventional quantum gravity theories. QT is predicted to breakdown when the mass of a
quantum system is near the Planck mass scale, allowing for experimental tests that are far more achievable than
those generally required for distinguishing conventional quantum gravity theories, where the relevant effects are
anticipated near the Planck length scale.
In the proposal considered here for a unified theory of GR and QT, quantum superposition states are
expected to decay to localized states with an average lifetime that is (in the Newtonian limit) reciprocally related
to the self-energy of the difference between the mass distributions of the localized states, EG [3], which is
dependent on the mass and configuration of the system. This has been generically considered for displaced,
uniform, spherical mass distributions. However, BECs tend to have non-uniform mass distributions, and so we
have extended this to the quadratic and Gaussian density distributions that are usually found in BEC
experiments, but which may also be applicable to other systems. Since they are often generated in BEC
experiments, we have also considered non-uniform spheroidal mass distributions, as well as uniform ones that
would be approximated in nano/micro-object experiments, finding that the average lifetime of state reduction
can be reduced compared to the spherical case. Due to the particular dependence that the GQSR considered here
has on the geometry of the superposed objects, this analysis could also be used to distinguish the GQSR from
other, and potentially non-gravitational, collapse models, such as the continuous spontaneous localization
(CSL) model [112].
To probe the GQSR, we have considered a BEC in a double-well trap that is placed in a macroscopic
superposition state of two locations. Assuming that the state reduction is a Poisson process similar to particle
decay, we have compared the rate of wavefunction collapse against prominent channels of environmental
decoherence in BEC systems. For the rate of decoherence to be significantly less than the rate of collapse, we
estimate that the BEC should have greater than 108 or 109 atoms, depending on the choice of a free parameter in
the GQSR proposal, and that the scattering length is reduced using an external magnetic field while maintaining
a macroscopic superposition state. Being able to control the atom-atom interactions provides a unique asset to
BEC tests.
We have concentrated on exact NOON states for estimating collapse and decoherence rates. However, as
with experimental proposals based on nano/micro-objects, these states would be challenging to create and
approximations to these states are more likely to be generated in experiments. Although estimating
environmental decoherence for approximate NOON states is a relatively simple task, the GQSR needs to be
extended to be able to handle these states. One possibility is to follow the approach of Diósi [15], but there may
be other, more general, alternatives, which will be the concern of future work. We have also concentrated on
only three-dimensional BECs, but prolate and oblate BECs with high ellipticity could move into a quasi-one and
-two dimensional regime, potentially reducing environmental decoherence processes such as that from three-
body recombination [97–99]. In this case, environmental decoherence could be reduced relative to spherical
BECs, whereas the collapse rate would be increased, improving the feasibility of experimental tests.
If signals of this proposal were not observed in experiments, then, depending on the achievable experimental
parameters, this could place severe constraints on the model (for example, the value of γ), and potentially rule it
out. It would also likely place constraints on other models of objective state reduction, such as CSL [112].
However, if signals were observed, then we would have the first evidence of how GR and QT must combine to
form a consistent, unified theory. Furthermore, it would explain the mysterious measurement process in QT
and provide it with a well-defined classical limit.
22
Acknowledgments
We thank participants of the Gravity in the lab 2018 workshop in Benasque, Spain for useful discussions and
comments. In particular, we would like to thank Philippe Bouyer, Devang Naik, Hendrik Ulbricht, Marko Toroš
Daniel Goldwater and Michael Tolan. RP would like to thank John Moussouris for a personal endowment
through the University of Oxford. RH and IF would like to acknowledge the support of the Penrose Institute.
Appendix A. EG for uniform, spherical mass distributions
Here we calculate the self-energy of the difference between uniform, displaced spherical mass distributions.
Taking the radius of the sphere states to be R and their mass M, then their density functions are defined by
⎧
⎪ r ≔ M ⎛⎜ 4 pR3⎞⎟ if r is inside sphere,
r (r ) = ⎨ 0 ⎝3 ⎠ (A.1)
⎪
⎩ 0 otherwise.
In terms of the step function θ(x), we can write the density functions as
r (r ) = r 0 q (R - rr ) q (R2 - rr2 - z 2) , (A.2)
r ¢ (r ) = r 0 q (R - rr ) q (R2 - rr2 - (z - b ) 2 ) , (A.3)
where rρ is the cylindrical radial coordinate, and we have taken the sphere states to be displaced along the z
coordinate by a distance b, with the r (r ) sphere state being at the origin of our coordinate system.
These density functions can be plugged into (19). However, we find it simpler to work with (18) to calculate
EG for this situation. In this case we need the gravitational potential inside and outside a sphere:
⎧ GM ⎛ 3 r2 ⎞
⎪
⎪ f ≔ - ⎜ - ⎟ if r  R ,
R ⎝2 2R2 ⎠
in
f=⎨ (A.4)
⎪ GM
⎪ f ≔- if r  R ,
⎩ out r
where now we are working in spherical coordinates (r, θ, ψ). Taking γ=1/(8π) then, due to the symmetry of the
problem, we can use
1
EG =
2 ò
(f - f¢)(r ¢ - r ) d3r (A.5)
ò
= f (r ¢ - r ) d3r . (A.6)
We first consider the term fr¢, which is related to the gravitational interaction energy [3]. When b>2R
then, following Gauss’s law, the gravitational interaction energy is simply −GM2/b. We can calculate this by
choosing the origin of our coordinate system to be at the center of the r (r ) sphere and integrate its potential over
the density of the other sphere using surfaces of constant radial coordinate r:
2p cos-1(z r r ) b+ R GM 2
ò fr ¢d3r = - r 0 ò0 ò0 òb-R fout r 2 sin q dr dq dy = -
b
. (A.7)
Using the same method for R  b  2R , we find:

2p cos-1(z r r ) ⎡ R b+ R ⎤
ò fr ¢d3r = - r 0 ò0 ò0 ⎢
⎣ òb-R fin + òR fout ⎥ r 2 sin q dr dq dy
⎦
(A.8)
GM 2 ⎛⎜ 6 3 1 ⎞
= - + 2l2 - l3 + l5⎟. (A.9)
R ⎝ 5 2 5 ⎠
Finally, for b  R , we have:
2p ⎡⎛ p R- b cos-1(z r r ) R ⎞
ò fr ¢d3r = - r 0 ò0 ⎢⎜
⎣⎝ ò0 ò0 + ò0 òR-b ⎟⎠ fin
cos-1(z r r ) R ⎤
+ ò0 òR+b fout ⎥⎦ r 2 sin qdr dqdy (A.10)
GM 2 ⎛⎜ 6 3 1 ⎞
= - + 2l2 - l3 + l5⎟ , (A.11)
R ⎝ 5 2 5 ⎠
23
which, as expected is the same as the previous result. Now we consider the term f ρ in (A.6). We can simply
extract this from the above result when b=0 such that:
6GM 2
ò frd3r = - 5R
, (A.12)
which is simply twice the gravitational self-energy of a sphere. Putting this altogether, we then obtain:
⎧ GM 2 ⎛ 3 3 1 ⎞
⎪ ⎜2l2 - l + l5⎟ if 0  l  1,
⎪ R ⎝ 2 5 ⎠
EG = ⎨ (A.13)
⎪ GM 2 ⎛⎜ 6 1 ⎞⎟
⎪ - if l  1.
⎩ R ⎝5 2l ⎠
Appendix B. EG for BEC, spherical mass distributions in the TF approximation
Here we calculate the self-energy of the difference between displaced spherical BEC mass distributions in the TF
approximation. Taking the radius of the sphere states to be R and their total mass M, then their density functions
are defined by
r (r ) = r 0 (r ) q (R - rr ) q (R2 - rr2 - z 2) , (B.1)
r ¢ (r ) = r ¢0 (r ) q (R - rr ) q (R2 - rr2 - (z - b)2) , (B.2)
where
5 5
r 0 (r ) ≔ r 0 (1 - (rr2 + z 2) R2) = r 0 (1 - r 2 R2) , (B.3)
2 2
5 5
r ¢0 (r ) ≔ r 0 (1 - (rr2 + [z - b]2 ) R2) = r 0 (1 - r ¢2 R2) , (B.4)
2 2
with r ¢2 = r 2 + b 2 - 2rb cos q and r0 ≔ M ((4 3) pR3) as before. We again use (18) to calculate EG for this
situation. In this case we need the gravitational potential inside and outside the sphere. From Gauss’s law, the
outside potential is of course the same as in the uniform situation. To find the inner potential, we can also apply
Gauss’s law:
∮ g .dS = - 4pGMr , (B.5)
where we choose a spherical surface of constant radius r within the sphere such that Mr is the total mass within
this spherical surface and is given by
r
Mr = 4p ò0 r (r ¢) r ¢ 2dr ¢ , (B.6)
M
= (5R2r 3 - 3r 5) , (B.7)
2R5
where M is the total mass of the spherical BEC. Therefore, the field inside the sphere is given by:
GM
g=- (5R2r 3 - 3r 5) , (B.8)
2R5r 2
and the potential then can be found through:
R- GM r - GM
fin (r ) = - ò¥ r 2
dr -
R 2R5r 2
ò
(5R2r 3 - 3r 5) (B.9)
GM
=- 5 (15R4 - 10R2r 2 + 3r 4). (B.10)
8R
The gravitational potential of a spherical BEC in the TF approximation is then
⎧ GM
⎪fin ≔ - 8R (15 - 10r R + 3r R ) if r  R ,
2 2 4 4
⎪
f=⎨ (B.11)
⎪f ≔ - GM if r  R.
⎪
⎩ out r
The rest of the calculation now proceeds similar to the uniform case. We first consider the term fr¢ in (A.6).
When b>2R we find, due to Gauss’s law again, that this is simply −GM2/b as before. For 0  b  2R we
choose the origin of our coordinate system to be at the center of the r (r ) sphere state and again integrate its
potential over the density of the other sphere state using surfaces of constant radial coordinate r:
24
2p cos-1(z r r ) ⎡ R b+ R ⎤
ò fr¢d3r = -ò0 ò0 ⎢
⎣ òb-R fin + òR fout ⎥ r ¢0 (r ) r 2 sin q dr dq dy
⎦
(B.12)
GM 2 ⎛⎜ 10 20 2 15 7 1 ⎞
= - + l - 6l4 + 5l6 - l + l9⎟. (B.13)
R ⎝ 7 7 14 7 ⎠
For the term f ρ in (A.6) we can again simply extract this from the above result when b=0:
10GM 2
ò fr = - 7R
. (B.14)
Putting this altogether, we obtain:

⎧ GM 2 ⎛ 20 15 7 1 ⎞
⎪ ⎜ l2 - 6l4 + 5l5 - l + l9⎟ if 0  l  1,
⎪ R ⎝7 14 7 ⎠
EG = ⎨ (B.15)
⎪ GM ⎛⎜ 10 - 1 ⎞⎟
2
if l  1.
⎪
⎩ R ⎝7 2l ⎠
Appendix C. EG for BEC, spherical mass distributions in the Gaussian approximation
Here we calculate the self-energy of the difference between displaced spherical BEC mass distributions in the
Gaussian approximation. Taking the sphere to have total mass M, then the density functions are defined by
4 R 0¢ 2 ,
r (r ) = r 0 e-r
2
(C.1)
3 p
4 2
r ¢ (r ) = r 0 e-r ¢ R 0¢ 2 , (C.2)
3 p
where r0 ≔ M ((4 3) pR 0¢ 3) and R 0¢ is given by (41) and can be taken as a measure for the size of the condensate
[66]. However, we do not take this as a discontinuous cut in the density and instead keep the the wavefunction of
the condensate has having infinite extent. Following the procedure outlined in the previous section using Gauss’s
law (or using the method outlined in appendix F), the potential of a Gaussian sphere is found to be
GM
erf (r R 0¢) ,
f (r ) = - (C.3)
r
where erf(x) is the error function. This tends to -2GM ( p R 0¢) in the limit that r  0 . The f ρ term of (A.6) is
then found to be
2p p ¥ GM 2 2
ò d3rfr = ò0 ò0 ò0 r (r ) f (r ) = -
R 0¢ p
, (C.4)
and the fr¢ term is

2p p ¥ GM 2 ⎛ b ⎞
ò d3rfr¢ = ò0 ò0 ò0 r ¢ (r ) f (r ) = -
b
erf ⎜ ⎟,
⎝ 2 R 0¢ ⎠
(C.5)
where we have used the identity [113]:

¥
ò0 [e-(x - A) - e-(x + A) ] erf (x ) dx º p erf (A
2 2
2 ). (C.6)
Putting this altogether, we obtain:
GM 2 ⎛ 2 1 ⎞
EG = ⎜ - erf ( 2 l) ⎟ (C.7)
R 0¢ ⎝ p 2l ⎠
where we have defined l ≔ b (2R 0¢).
Appendix D. EG for uniform, spheroidal mass distributions
Here we consider the self-energy of the difference between uniform, displaced spheroidal mass distributions.
Following the previous sections, we work with (18) to calculate EG. In this case we need the gravitational
potential inside and outside the spheroid. This is simplest in spheroidal coordinates: in prolate spheroidal
coordinates, the gravitational potential of prolate spheroid is [114, 115]:
25
⎧ ⎛ ⎞
⎪f prolate ≔ - GM ⎜Q 0 (x ) G1 (x , h ) + x (x - 1) G 2 (x , h ) + x 0 - x G 3 (x , h ) ⎟ if x  x
2 2 2
⎪ in ⎜ 0 ⎟ 0
f=⎨ l ⎝ x 0 [x 20 - 1] x 0 [x 20 - 1] ⎠ (D.1)
⎪ prolate GM
⎪f out ≔ - (Q 0 (x ) - Q 2 (x ) P2 (h )) ifx  x 0,
⎩ l
where
G1 (x , h ) ≔ 1 - P2 (x ) P2 (h ) , (D.2)
3
G 2 (x , h ) ≔ P 2 (h ) x , (D.3)
2
1
G 3 (x , h ) ≔ + P 2 (x ) P 2 (h ) , (D.4)
2
Pn(x) and Qn(x) are Legendre polynomials of the first and second kind17 :
1
P 2 (x ) = (3x 2 - 1) , (D.6)
2
⎛ x + 1⎞ 1
Q 0 (x ) = (1 2) ln ⎜ ⎟ = tan-1 x + ip , (D.7)
⎝ x - 1⎠ 2
3
Q 2 (x ) = P 2 (x ) Q 0 (x ) - x; (D.8)
2
l = c 2 - a2 is the focal distance with a and c the equatorial and polar radii respectively (which are respectively
the semi-minor and semi-major axes for the prolate but semi-major and semi-minor for the oblate case); (ξ, η,
ψ) are prolate spheroidal coordinates with
x l= x 2 - 1 sin n cos y, (D.9)
y l= x 2 - 1 sin n sin y, (D.10)
z l = x cos n , (D.11)
using h = cos n ; and ξ0≔c/l is the value of ξ at the surface of the prolate spheroid. For the potential of the
oblate spheroid, just replace ξ with iξ, l by −il and ξ0 with iξ0 [114, 115].
We first consider the term fρ in (18) for a prolate spheroid:
2p 1 x0
ò d3rfr = rspheroid
0 ò0 ò-1 ò1 l 3 (x 2 - h 2) f in
prolate
dx dh dy (D.12)
6GM 2
= coth-1 x 0, (D.13)
5l
6GM 2
= tanh-1 e , (D.14)
5l
where e is the ellipticity (e≔c/l for the prolate case) and rspheroid
0
=M/((4/3)π a2c ) is the density of a uniform
spheroid. For an oblate spheroid, we just need to replace ξ0 with iξ0 to obtain
6GM 2 -1 6GM 2 -1
cot x 0 = sin e , (D.15)
5l 5l
where e≔a/l is now the ellipticity of an oblate spheroid with l = a2 - c 2 its focal distance.
We now consider the term fr¢ in (18). For the prolate spheroid in configuration (b) in figure 3, we choose to
integrate over surfaces of constant ξ. When b  2c , we use
2p 1 (b + c ) l
ò fr¢d3r = rspheroid
0 ò0 òh ò(b-c ) l x
l 3 (x 2 - h 2) f out
prolate
dx dh dy , (D.16)
where ηξ is the η-coordinate where the ξ-surface meets with the surface of the r¢ spheroid. When 0  b  2c ,
we use
2p 1 ⎡ c l
0 ò0 òh ⎢⎣ò(b-c ) l f inprolate
x
(D.17)
17
Often Q0(x) is alternatively defined as
1 ⎛⎜ 1 + x ⎞⎟
Q0 (x ) ≔ ln = tan-1 x. (D.5)
2 ⎝1 - x ⎠
26
(b + c ) l ⎤
+ òc l f out ⎥ l ( x - h 2 ) dx dh dy .
prolate 3 2
(D.18)
⎦
The result for EG to first order in ò, where a=òc, for a prolate spheroid is provided in section 2.2.
Another option, which is more suited to an oblate spheroidal coordinate system, is to integrate over surfaces
of constant η. Choosing now to work instead with an oblate spheroid coordinate system then, when b  2c ,
we use
2p 1 x2
0 ò0 òh òx max 1
l 3 (x 2 + h 2) foblate
out dx dh dy , (D.19)
where ξ1 and ξ2 are the two values of ξ where the constant η-surface crosses the r¢ spheroid state, and ηmax is the
value of η where there is only one ξ solution i.e. ξ1=ξ2. When 0  b  2c , we use
2p ⎡ 1 ⎛ x0 x2 ⎞
0 ò0 ⎢⎣òh ⎜⎝òx int 1
foblate
in + òx 0
foblate
out ⎟
⎠
(D.20)
hint x2 ⎤
+ òh òx
max 1
foblate
out ⎥ l (x + h ) dx dh dy ,
⎦
3 2 2 (D.21)
where ηint=b/(2l ξ0) is the η-coordinate where the two spheroids meet. Once the result for EG is obtained, the
prolate spheroid case can be found via x0  ix0 as above. When   1, where now c≔òa, EG for an oblate
spheroid displaced along its symmetry axis can be approximated by (25) in section 2.2.
Unlike in the spherical case, equipotential surfaces are not similar-shaped spheroids (or confocal spheroids),
emphasizing that Gauss’s law is not as useful for these objects. Therefore, integrating over constant ξ or η
surfaces is not as simple. An alternative is to use cylindrical coordinates where the prolate spheroid potential
inside and outside the spheroid is given by:
3GM ⎡ 2 ⎛ ⎞ 2 2 ⎤
-1⎜ a ⎟ - l (c r - 2a z ) ,
2 2
f in
prolate
≔- ⎢ ( 2l + D ) csch ⎥ (D.22)
4l 3 ⎣ ⎝l ⎠ a 2c ⎦
3GM ⎡⎢ 2 ⎛ ⎞
-1 ⎜ 2 l ⎟ -
2 l (Ap D + l 2C ) ⎤
⎥,
f out
prolate
≔- ( 2l + D ) sinh (D.23)
4l 3 ⎣⎢ ⎝ Bp ⎠ Ep Bp2 ⎥⎦
and the oblate potential is found by taking l  -il , to obtain:

3GM ⎡ 2 ⎛a⎞ l (c 2r 2 - 2a 2z 2) ⎤
foblate ≔- ⎢(2l - D) csc-1⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ + ⎥, (D.24)
in
4l ⎣
3 l a 2c ⎦
3GM ⎡ ⎛ 2l ⎞ 2 l (Ao D - l 2C ) ⎤
foblate ≔ - 3 ⎢(2l 2 - D) sin-1 ⎜ ⎟+ ⎥, (D.25)
out
4l ⎣ ⎝ Bo ⎠ Eo Bo2 ⎦
where
Ap ≔ r 2 + z 2 + l 4 + 2l 2 (r 2 - z 2) + (z 2 + r 2)2 , (D.26)
Ao ≔ r 2 + z 2 + z 4 + 2z 2 (r 2 + l 2) + (l 2 - r 2)2 , (D.27)
Bp ≔ Ap - l 2 , E p ≔ Ap + l 2 , (D.28)
Bo ≔ A o + l 2 , Eo ≔ Ao - l 2 , (D.29)
C ≔ r 2 + 2z 2, (D.30)
D≔ r2 - 2z 2. (D.31)
To second order in ellipticity, the potentials, in spherical coordinates, become:
⎧ GM
⎪ f ≔ fsphere  P (cos q ) e 2 if r  r (q ) ,
⎪ in in
5 R 3 2
f=⎨ 2
(D.32)
⎪f ≔ fsphere  GMR P (cos q ) e 2 if r  r (q ) ,
⎪
⎩ out out 2
5r 3
where + is for the prolate case, − is for the oblate case, fsphere
in out
is given by (A.4), r (q ) ≔ c [1 - e 2 cos2 q ]-1 2
(with the respective definitions of ellipticity for the two spheroidal cases), and we have taken both spheroids to
have the same volume as a sphere with radius R.
Using the full potentials in cylindrical coordinates, for the spheroidal cases in configuration (a) and (b) in
figure 3, the f ρ term is then:
27
2p c a 1-z 2 c 2
ò fr d3r = rspheroid
0 ò0 ò-c ò0 fspheroid
in r dr dz dy . (D.33)
where fspheroid
in is given by either (D.22) or (D.24). For b  2c , the fr¢ term is:
2p b+ c a 1 - (z - b )2 c 2
ò fr ¢d3r = rspheroid ò0 òb-c ò0 fout r dr dz dy ,
spheroid
0 (D.34)
where fspheroid
out
is given by either (D.23) or (D.25); and for 0  b  2c , we can use
2p ⎡⎛ b 2 a 1 - (z - b )2 c 2 c a 1-z 2 c 2 ⎞
rspheroid
0 ò0 ⎢⎜⎜
⎢⎣⎝ òb-c ò0 + òb 2 ò0 ⎟⎟ fspheroid
⎠
in (D.35)
⎛ c a 1 - (z - b )2 c 2 b+ c a 1 - (z - b )2 c 2 ⎞ ⎤
òb 2 òa òc ò0
spheroid ⎥
+ ⎜⎜ + ⎟⎟ fout r dr dz dy . (D.36)
⎝ 1-z 2 c 2 ⎠ ⎥⎦
For the oblate and prolate configurations (c) and (d) in figure 3, the above procedure is just slightly modified.
Appendix E. EG for BEC, spheroidal mass distributions in the TF limit
Within the TF approximation, the density of spheroidal BECs is given by (see (48)):
5 spheroid
roblate
0 (r ) = r (1 - rr2 a 2 - z 2 c 2) (E.1)
2 0
5 x 02 - x 2
= rspheroid [ x 2 + h 2] (E.2)
2 0 x 20 [x 20 + 1] 0
5 2 spheroid
= r (1 - e ¢2 [x 2 + h 2 (1 - e ¢2x 2)]) , (E.3)
2 0
5 spheroid
r 0prolate (r ) = r (1 - e 2 [x 2 + h 2 (1 - e 2x 2)]) (E.4)
2 2 0
for the respective coordinate systems, where e ¢ ≔ l c is the second ellipticity for an oblate spheroid.
We now find the gravitational potential of these spheroidal BECs by summing the individual potentials from
point-like sources of mass dm = r (r ¢) d3r ¢ where d3r ¢ is the volume element of the spheroid, and r (r ) is its
density function, i.e. we use (16):
r (r ¢) 3
f (x ) º - G ò r
d r ¢, (E.5)
with r ≔ ∣r - r ¢∣ the distance from the point source to the point of interest. Working in prolate spheroidal
coordinates we then have
1
f = -G
r ò
r (x ¢ , h ¢) l 3 [x ¢2 - h ¢2] dx ¢dh ¢dy¢. (E.6)
Following [114, 115], in prolate spheroidal coordinates, the ratio of l to r can be expressed as:
¥
l
= å (2n + 1) Pn (h ) Pn (h ¢) Qn (x ) Pn (x ¢) (E.7)
r n= 0
¥ n ⎛ (n - m)! ⎞2
+ 2 å (2n + 1) å ( - 1)m ⎜ ⎟ (E.8)
n= 1 m=1 ⎝ (n + m)! ⎠
´ Pnm (h ) Pnm (h ¢) Qnm (x ) Pnm (x ¢) cos [m (y - y¢)] , (E.9)
for x > x ¢ , and
¥
l
= å (2n + 1) Pn (h ) Pn (h ¢) Pn (x ) Qn (x ¢) + f (cos [m (y - y¢)]) , (E.10)
r n= 0
for x < x ¢ , where Pnm (x ) and Qnm (x ) are the associated Legendre polynomials of the first and second kind and f is
an unimportant function of cos [m (y - y¢)] since, when inserting (E.10) into (E.6), this term, and the second
term in (E.10), vanish once we integrate over ψ [114, 115]. For the prolate spheroid, we then end up with:
¥
fout = - 2pl 2G å (2n + 1) Qn (x ) Pn (h ) (E.11)
n= 0
1 x0
´ ò-1 ò1 r (x ¢ , h ¢) Pn (x ¢) Pn (h ¢)[x ¢2 - h ¢2] dx ¢dh ¢ , (E.12)
28
¥ ⎡ 1 x
fin = - 2pl 2G å (2n + 1) ⎢Qn (x ) Pn (h )
n= 0
⎣ ò-1 ò1 r (x ¢ , h ¢) Pn (x ¢) Pn (h ¢) (E.13)
1 x0 ⎤
+ Pn (x ) Pn (h ) ò-1 òx r (x ¢ , h ¢) Qn (x ¢) Pn (h ¢) ⎥ [x ¢2 - h ¢2] dx ¢dh ¢.
⎦
(E.14)
Using (E.4) for r (x ¢ , h ¢), we then find that:

GM ⎛ x2 - x2
f out
prolate
=- ⎜⎜16Q 0 (x 0) F1 (x , h ) + 3 2 0 F2 (x , h ) (E.15)
112l ⎝ x 0 [x 0 - 1]2
x 2 (x 2 - 1) ⎞
+ F3 ( x , h ) ⎟⎟ , (E.16)
x 30 [x 20 - 1]2 ⎠
GM
f out
prolate
=- (7Q 0 (x ) - 10Q 2 (x ) P2 (h ) + 3Q4 (x ) P4 (h )) , (E.17)
7l
where
F1 (x , h ) ≔ 7 - 10P2 (x ) P2 (h ) + 3P4 (x ) P4 (h ) , (E.18)
F2 (x , h ) ≔ 14[5x 20 - 7x 40 + x 2 (3x 20 - 1)] (E.19)
+ 40P2 (x ) P2 (h )[2x 20 - 4x 40 + x 2 (3x 20 - 4) + 3x 4] (E.20)
- 8P4 (x ) P4 (h )[10x 20 - 6x 40 - x 2 (13 + 6x 20) + 15x 4] , (E.21)
F4 (x , h ) ≔ 60P2 (h )[x 40 - 6x 20 + 2x 2 - 3x 4] (E.22)
+ 5P4 (h )(21x 2 - 11)[3x 20 - x 2 (1 + 7x 20) + 5x 4] , (E.23)
1
P4 (x ) ≔ (3 - 30x 2 + 35x 4) , (E.24)
8
1
Q 4 (x ) ≔ x (110 - 210x 2) + P4 (x ) Q 0 (x ) , (E.25)
48
and we have used the orthogonality relationship of Legendre polynomials of the first kind:
1 2
ò-1 Pn (x ) Pm (x ) dx = 2n + 1 dmn. (E.26)
In contrast to the uniform case, we now have Legendre polynomials of the fourth degree. Also note that,
unlike in the spherical case, the potential outside the BEC spheroid is different to the uniform spheroid. To
obtain the oblate potentials in oblate coordinates, we just make the changes x  ix , x0  ix0 and l  -il .
It is also possible to find the potentials in cylindrical coordinates by taking the inverse transformations:
1
x= [ r 2 + (z + l ) 2 + r 2 + (z - l ) 2 ] , (E.27)
2l
1
h= [ r 2 + (z + l ) 2 - r 2 + (z - l ) 2 ] (E.28)
2l
for prolate spheroidal coordinates, and (taking l  -il ):
1 1
x = [ r 2 + (z - il )2 + r 2 + (z + il )2 ] º Eo , (E.29)
2l 2l
i 1
h = [ r 2 + (z - il )2 - r 2 + (z + il )2 ] º Fo, (E.30)
2l 2l
for oblate spheroidal coordinates, where Eo is defined in the previous section, and
Fo ≔ l2 - r 2 - z 2 + ( l 2 - r 2) 2 + 2 ( l 2 + r 2) z 2 + z 4 . (E.31)
In the appropriate limit, i.e. a  c  R (and so l  0 ), it is possible to show that these potentials become
the spherical BEC potentials provided in appendix B. To calculate EG for the different spheroidal configurations,
the procedure in the previous section can be followed with the uniform potentials and density functions replaced
with those above. Alternatively, it is possible to integrate over spheroidal surfaces of constant density using the
area element l 2 [(x 2 - h (x )2)(1 - h (x )2 + (x 2 - 1) h ¢ (x )2)]1 2 for prolate coordinates where h ¢ ≔ dh (x ) dx .
29
Appendix F. BEC spheroidal mass distributions in the Gaussian limit
Here we calculate the gravitational potential due to a spheroidal BEC in the Gaussian limit for small ellipticity
values. We work in spherical coordinates to easily compare to the spherical BEC case. In general, the potential
can be calculated from (E.6), which, in spherical coordinates is
2p p ¥ r (r ¢ , q ¢ , y¢) 2
f (r , q , y ) = - G ò0 ò0 ò0 ∣r - r ¢∣
r ¢ sin q ¢dr ¢dq ¢dy¢. (F.1)
Since the spheroidal density does not depend on ψ, we can set ψ=0 such that
∣r - r ¢∣ = r 2 + r ¢2 - 2rr ¢ (sin q sin q ¢ cos y¢ + cos q cos q ¢) . (F.2)
We can then expand the above in terms of Legendre polynomials of the first kind:
⎧1 ⎛ r ¢ ⎞n
2p
⎪ å ⎜ ⎟ Pn (cos q ) Pn (cos q ¢) if r > r ¢ ,
⎪ r n = 0, ¥ ⎝ r ⎠
1 1
2p ò0 ∣r - r ¢∣
dy ¢ = ⎨
⎪1 ⎛ r ⎞n
(F.3)
⎪ r¢ å ⎜ ⎟ Pn (cos q ) Pn (cos q ¢) if r < r ¢ ,
⎩ n = 0, ¥ ⎝ r ¢ ⎠
so that (E.6) becomes

p ⎡ 1 r
f (r , q ) = - 2pGPn (cos q ) ò0 ⎢⎣ n + 1
r ò0 r ¢n + 2 (F.4)
¥ ⎤
+ rn òr r ¢1 - n⎥ r (r ¢ , q ¢) Pn (cos q ¢) sin q ¢dr ¢dq ¢.
⎦
(F.5)
The density of the spheroidal BEC in the Gaussian limit is given by (43). Assuming the spheroid to have the
same volume as a sphere with radius R, then in the limit of small ellipticity, the density function becomes
⎡ 2r 2e 2
r (r , q ) = rGauss
sphere ⎢1  P2 (cos q ) (F.6)
⎣ 3R2
r 2e 4 ⎛ 14r 2 2r 2
- ⎜35 - 2 - 10(  7b + 2 ) P2 (cos q ) (F.7)
135R ⎝ 2 R R
36r 2 ⎞⎤
- P4 (cos q ) ⎟ ⎥ , (F.8)
R 2 ⎠⎦
sphere is given by (C.1); + is for the prolate case, which has β=1; and − is for the oblate case, which has
where rGauss
β=2. Inserting the density expression into (F.4), and using the orthogonality relationship (E.26), we find
GMe 2 ⎡ ⎛ ⎞⎤
5 erf ⎜ r ⎟
f (r , q ) = fGauss
sphere  q ⎢ -
⎝ R ⎠ ⎥⎦
P 2 ( cos ) e ( r ) X2 ( r ) 21R (F.9)
6Rr 3 ⎣
GMe 4 ⎛⎜ 1
+ e (r )(r 2 + R2) (F.10)
R3 ⎝ 45
1 ⎡ ⎛ r ⎞⎤
 ⎢e (r ) X 4 (r ) - 21R5 erf ⎝⎜ ⎠⎟ ⎥ P2 (cos q ) (F.11)
63br ⎣
3 R ⎦
1 ⎡ ⎛ r ⎞⎤ ⎞
+ ⎢e (r ) Y4 (r ) - 105R7 erf ⎜⎝ ⎟⎠ ⎥ P4 (cos q ) ⎟ , (F.12)
140r ⎣
5 R ⎦ ⎠
where
2 -r 2 R2 ,
e (r ) ≔ e (F.13)
p
X2 (r ) ≔ 2r 3 + 3rR2 , (F.14)
X 4 (r ) ≔  2br 5 + 14r 3R2 + 21rR4 , (F.15)
Y4 (r ) ≔ r (8r 6 + 28r 4R2 + 70r 2R4 + 105R6) , (F.16)
fGaussis given by (C.3); and, again, + is for the prolate case, which has β=1; and − is for the oblate case, which
sphere
has β=2.
30
ORCID iDs
Richard Howl https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9428-5355
References
[1] Penrose R 1965 Proc. R. Soc. A 284 159
[2] Penrose R 1998 General Relativity and Gravitation 13. Part 1: Plenary Lectures 1992. Proc. 13th Int. Conf. on General Relativity and
Gravitation (Cordoba, Argentina, 28 June—4 July 1992) ed R J Gleiser et al ( Bristol: Institute of Physics Publishing) pp 179–89
[3] Penrose R 1996 Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 28 581
[4] Penrose R 2004 The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe 1st edn (London: Johathan Cape)
[5] Penrose R 2009 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 174 012001
[6] Penrose R 2014 Proc. Horizons of Quantum Physics (Taipei, Taiwan, 14–18, October 2012); Found. Phys. 44 557
[7] Károlyházy F 1966 Nuovo Cimento A 42 390
[8] Károlyházy F 1974 M. Fiz. F. 22 23 http://cds.cern.ch/record/430144
[9] Károlyházy F, Frenkel A and Lukács B 1986 Quantum Concepts in Space and Time ed R Penrose and C J Isham (Oxford: Oxford
University Press) pp 109–28
[10] Kibble T W B 1981 Quantum Gravity 2: A Second Oxford Symp. ed C J Isham et al (Oxford: Oxford University Press) pp 63–80
[11] Diósi L 1984 Phys. Lett. A 105 199
[12] Diósi L 1987 Phys. Lett. A 120 377
[13] Diósi L and Lukács B 1987 Ann. Phys., Lpz. 499 488
[14] Ghirardi G, Grassi R and Rimini A 1990 Phys. Rev. A 42 1057
[15] Diósi L 1989 Phys. Rev. A 40 1165
[16] Diósi L 1990 Phys. Rev. A 42 5086
[17] Percival I C 1995 Proc. R. Soc. A 451 503
[18] Everett H 1957 Rev. Mod. Phys. 29 454
[19] Rovelli C 1996 Int. J. Theor. Phys. 35 1637
[20] Feynman R 1957 Chapel Hill Conf. Proc. ed C M DeWitt and D Rickles (Edition Open Access) pp 250–6
[21] Carney D, Stamp P C E and Taylor J M 2019 Class. Quantum Gravit. 36 034001
[22] Christodoulou M and Rovelli C 2019 Phys. Lett. B 792 64–8
[23] Bose S, Mazumdar A, Morley G W, Ulbricht H, Toroš M, Paternostro M, Geraci A A, Barker P F, Kim M S and Milburn G 2017 Phys.
Rev. Lett. 119 240401
[24] Marletto C and Vedral V 2017 Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 240402
[25] Casimir H B G and Polder D 1948 Phys. Rev. 73 360
[26] Marletto C and Vedral V 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 046001
[27] Christodoulou M and Rovelli C 2018 arXiv:1812.01542
[28] Penrose R 2000 Wavefunction collapse as a real gravitational effect Mathematical Physics 2000 ed A Fokas et al (London: Imperial
College Press) pp 266–82
[29] Marshall W, Simon C, Penrose R and Bouwmeester D 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 130401
[30] Weaver M J, Pepper B, Luna F, Buters F M, Eerkens H J, Welker G, Perock B, Heeck K, de Man S and Bouwmeester D 2016 Appl. Phys.
Lett. 108 033501
[31] Eerkens H J, Buters F M, Weaver M J, Pepper B, Welker G, Heeck K, Sonin P, de Man S and Bouwmeester D 2015 Opt. Express 23 8014
[32] Adler S L 2007 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40 755
[33] Pino H, Prat-Camps J, Sinha K, Venkatesh B P and Romero-Isart O 2018 Quantum Sci. Technol. 3 025001
[34] Fuentes I and Penrose R 2018 Quantum state reduction via gravity, and possible tests using Bose–Einstein condensates Collapse of the
Wave Function: Models, Ontology, Origin, and Implications (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) pp 187–206
[35] Kovachy T, Asenbaum P, Overstreet C, Donnelly C, Dickerson S, Sugarbaker A, Hogan J and Kasevich M 2015 Nature 528 530
[36] Gaunt A L, Schmidutz T F, Gotlibovych I, Smith R P and Hadzibabic Z 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 110 200406
[37] Cirac J I, Lewenstein M, Mølmer K and Zoller P 1998 Phys. Rev. A 57 1208
[38] Ho T-L and Ciobanu C V 2004 J. Low Temp. Phys. 135 257
[39] Huang Y P and Moore M G 2006 Phys. Rev. A 73 023606
[40] Bychek A A, Maksimov D N and Kolovsky A R 2018 Phys. Rev. A 97 063624
[41] Haine S A 2018 arXiv:1810.10202 [quant-ph]
[42] Quandt-Wiese G 2017 arXiv:1701.00353 [quant-ph]
[43] Mead C A 1964 Phys. Rev. 135 B849
[44] Tawfik A and Diab A 2014 Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 23 1430025
[45] Greenberger D M and Overhauser A W 1979 Rev. Mod. Phys. 51 43
[46] Beyer H and Nitsch J 1986 Phys. Lett. B 182 211
[47] Rosu H C 1999 Gravit. Cosmol. 5 81–91
[48] Colella R, Overhauser A W and Werner S A 1975 Phys. Rev. Lett. 34 1472
[49] Colella R and Overhauser A W 1980 Am. Sci. 68 70 http://www.jstor.org/stable/27849721
[50] Werner S A 1994 Class. Quantum Grav. 11 A207
[51] Rauch H and Werner S A 2015 Neutron Interferometry: Lessons in Experimental Quantum Mechanics, Wave-particle Duality, and
Entanglement vol 57 2nd edn (Oxford: Oxford University Press) pp 284–5
[52] Fulling S A 1973 Phys. Rev. D 7 2850
[53] Davies P C W 1975 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 8 609
[54] Unruh W G 1976 Phys. Rev. D 14 870
[55] Oosterkamp T H and Zaanen J 2014 arXiv:1401.0176 [quant-ph]
[56] Penrose R 1998 Phil. Trans. R. Soc. A 356 1927
[57] Moroz I M, Penrose R and Tod P 1998 Class. Quantum Grav. 15 2733
[58] Scala M, Kim M S, Morley G W, Barker P F and Bose S 2013 Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 180403
[59] Pitaevsk L P 1961 JETP-USSR 13 451
31
[60] Gross E 1961 Il Nuovo Cimento 20 454

[61] Pérez-García V M, Michinel H, Cirac J I, Lewenstein M and Zoller P 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 5320
[62] Shi H and Zheng W-M 1997 Phys. Rev. A 55 2930
[63] Stoof H T C 1997 J. Stat. Phys. 87 1353
[64] Parola A, Salasnich L and Reatto L 1998 Phys. Rev. A 57 R3180
[65] Fetter A L 1997 J. Low Temp. Phys. 106 643
[66] Dalfovo F, Giorgini S, Pitaevskii L P and Stringari S 1999 Rev. Mod. Phys. 71 463
[67] Thomas L H 1927 Math. Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. 23 542
[68] Fermi E 1927 Rend. Accad. Naz. Lincei 6 602
[69] Ruprecht P A, Holland M J, Burnett K and Edwards M 1995 Phys. Rev. A 51 4704
[70] Sakellari E, Proukakis N P and Adams C S 2004 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 37 3681
[71] Wadati M and Tsurumi T 1998 Phys. Lett. A 247 287
[72] Griffin A, Nikuni T and Zaremba E 2009 Bose-Condensed Gases at Finite Temperatures ed A Griffin et al (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press)
[73] Pitaevskii L and Stringari S 2016 Bose–Einstein Condensation and Superfluidity (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
[74] Fried D G, Killian T C, Willmann L, Landhuis D, Moss S C, Kleppner D and Greytak T J 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett. 81 3811
[75] van der Stam K M R, van Ooijen E D, Meppelink R, Vogels J M and van der Straten P 2007 Rev. Sci. Instrum. 78 013102
[76] Naik D S and Raman C 2005 Phys. Rev. A 71 033617
[77] Ruostekoski J, Collett M J, Graham R and Walls D F 1998 Phys. Rev. A 57 511
[78] Gordon D and Savage C M 1999 Phys. Rev. A 59 4623
[79] Louis P J Y, Brydon P M R and Savage C M 2001 Phys. Rev. A 64 053613
[80] Ruostekoski J 2001 Directions in Quantum Optics ed H J Carmichael et al (Berlin: Springer) pp 77–87
[81] Mahmud K W, Perry H and Reinhardt W P 2003 J. Phys. B: At. Mol. Opt. Phys. 36 L265
[82] Micheli A, Jaksch D, Cirac J I and Zoller P 2003 Phys. Rev. A 67 013607
[83] Dunningham J A, Burnett K, Roth R and Phillips W D 2006 New J. Phys. 8 182
[84] Smerzi A and Trombettoni A 2003 Phys. Rev. A 68 023613
[85] Dalton B 2011 Ann. Phys., NY 326 668
[86] Fuentes-Schuller I and Barberis-Blostein P 2007 J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 40 F601
[87] Gersch H A and Knollman G C 1963 Phys. Rev. 129 959
[88] Fisher M P A, Weichman P B, Grinstein G and Fisher D S 1989 Phys. Rev. B 40 546
[89] Jaksch D, Bruder C, Cirac J I, Gardiner C W and Zoller P 1998 Phys. Rev. Lett 81 3108
[90] Haigh T, Ferris A and Olsen M 2010 Opt. Commun. 283 3540
[91] Opanchuk B, Rosales-Zárate L, Teh R Y and Reid M D 2016 Phys. Rev. A 94 062125
[92] Jack M W 2002 Phys. Rev. Lett. 89 140402
[93] Bilardello M, Trombettoni A and Bassi A 2017 Phys. Rev. A 95 032134
[94] Fedichev P O, Reynolds M W and Shlyapnikov G V 1996 Phys. Rev. Lett. 77 2921
[95] Search C P, Zhang W and Meystre P 2004 Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 140401
[96] Schützhold R and Gnanapragasam G 2010 Phys. Rev. A 82 022120
[97] Mehta N P, Esry B D and Greene C H 2007 Phys. Rev. A 76 022711
[98] Helfrich K and Hammer H-W 2011 Phys. Rev. A 83 052703
[99] D’Incao J P, Anis F and Esry B D 2015 Phys. Rev. A 91 062710
[100] Dalvit D A R, Dziarmaga J and Zurek W H 2000 Phys. Rev. A 62 013607
[101] Schelle A 2009 Environment-induced dynamics in a dilute Bose–Einstein condensate PhD Thesis Université Pierre et Marie Curie—
Paris VI
[102] Gardiner C W and Zoller P 1998 Phys. Rev. A 58 536
[103] Jaksch D, Gardiner C W, Gheri K M and Zoller P 1998 Phys. Rev. A 58 1450
[104] Leanhardt A E, Pasquini T A, Saba M, Schirotzek A, Shin Y, Kielpinski D, Pritchard D E and Ketterle W 2003 Science 301 1513
[105] Bali S, O’Hara K M, Gehm M E, Granade S R and Thomas J E 1999 Phys. Rev. A 60 R29
[106] Pawłowski K and Rza̧żewski K 2010 Phys. Rev. A 81 013620
[107] Pichler H, Daley A J and Zoller P 2010 Phys. Rev. A 82 063605
[108] Ferrini G, Spehner D, Minguzzi A and Hekking F W J 2011 Phys. Rev. A 84 043628
[109] Tiecke T G, Kemmann M, Buggle C, Shvarchuck I, von Klitzing W and Walraven J T M 2003 J. Opt. B: Quantum Semiclass. Opt. 5 S119
[110] Schumm T 2006 Bose–Einstein condensates in magnetic double well potentials PhD Thesis Université Paris Sud—Paris XI
[111] Ferrini G, Spehner D, Minguzzi A and Hekking F W J 2010 Phys. Rev. A 82 033621
[112] Ghirardi G C, Pearle P and Rimini A 1990 Phys. Rev. A 42 78
[113] Ng E W and Geller M 1969 J. Res. Natl Bur. Stand. B 73 1
[114] Wang W X 1988 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 21 4245
[115] Wang W X 1989 J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 22 1459
32

Exploring The Unification of Quantum Theory and Ge

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring The Unification of Quantum Theory and Ge

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Exploring The Unification of Quantum Theory and Ge

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

New J. Phys. 21 (2019) 043047 https://doi.org/10.

Exploring the uniﬁcation of quantum theory and general relativity

Original content from this

1.1. Motivation and background

1.2. Experimental approaches

2. Gravitationally-induced state reduction from conﬂicts between GR and QT

D≔g ò (a - a¢)2d3r , (10)

= g ò (f - f¢)2d3r , (11)

= g ò [(f - f¢)].[f - f¢] d3r , (12)

= - g ò (f - f¢)(2f - 2f¢) d3r , (13)

D = - 4pGg ò (f - f¢)(r - r¢) d3r , (15)

EG = 4pg ò (f - f¢)(r¢ - r) d3r (18)

2.1. Gravitationally-induced state reduction for uniform spherical mass distributions

2.2. Gravitationally-induced state reduction for uniform spheroidal mass distributions

where A and C are deﬁned as:

3. Testing with a BECs

3.1. Gravitational self-energy of the difference between BEC mass distributions

3.1.1. Density in the Gaussian approximation

3.1.2. Density in the TF approximation

In terms of experimental parameters, R is given by

3.1.3. Self-energy of the difference between spherical BECs

3.1.4. Self-energy of the difference between spheroidal BECs

where λ≔b/(2c) and

A ≔ 144l2 (ln 2 - 1) - 168l4 (3 ln 2 - 4) - 378l5 + 133l7 - 25l9, (55)

B ≔ 10(6l2 - 21l4 + 21l6 - 6l7 + l9) , (56)

C ≔ 6g coth-1(1 - 2l) - 6k coth-1(1 + 2l)

k ≔ (1 + 2l)3 [128 + l (2l [207 + 4l (2l (l - 3)(2l + 3))] - 453)]. (59)

3.1.5. Self-energy difference in BEC experiments

3.2. Generating macroscopic superposition states with double-well BECs

[aˆ i , aˆ j†] = dij , [aˆ i , aˆ j ] = 0, (66)

ò dry*i (r , t ) yj (r , t ) » dij , (67)

ò d3ryL Hˆ DW yL, xR ≔ ò d3ryR Hˆ DW yR,

JLR ≔ ò d3ryL Hˆ DW yR, UL ≔ g ò d3ry 4L , UR ≔ g ò d3ry R4 , (73)

ULRLR ≔ g ò d3ry 2L y 2R, ULLRR ≔ g ò d3ry 2L y 2R, (74)

ULLLR ≔ g ò d3ry 2L yL yR, URRRL ≔ g ò d3ry R2 yR yL, (75)

3.3. Environmental decoherence

3.3.1. Three-body recombination

3.3.2. Thermal cloud interactions

is the chemical potential of a spherical BEC in the TF regime.

áaˆL† N aˆRN ñ (t ) = e-gt N t áaˆL† N aˆRN ñ0 .

Taking EG to be of the form (60), we require

3.3.3. Foreign atom interactions

3.3.4. Decoherence from the trapping potential

Appendix A. EG for uniform, spherical mass distributions

Using the same method for R  b  2R , we ﬁnd:

Appendix B. EG for BEC, spherical mass distributions in the TF approximation

∮ g .dS = - 4pGMr , (B.5)

Putting this altogether, we obtain:

Appendix C. EG for BEC, spherical mass distributions in the Gaussian approximation

and the fr¢ term is

where we have used the identity [113]:

Putting this altogether, we obtain:

where we have deﬁned l ≔ b (2R 0¢).

Appendix D. EG for uniform, spheroidal mass distributions

and the oblate potential is found by taking l  -il , to obtain:

Appendix E. EG for BEC, spheroidal mass distributions in the TF limit

Using (E.4) for r (x ¢ , h ¢), we then ﬁnd that: