The Apparatus Strikes Back: Momentum Conservation and the Cost of Spatial Superpositions
arXiv:2607.08819
The paper shows that momentum conservation forces any apparatus creating a spatial superposition of a massive particle to become entangled with the particle, and that the resulting recoil can limit the particle’s coherence unless the apparatus is kept sufficiently cold and rigidly anchored.
Abstract
Preparing massive particles in coherent spatial superpositions is a central objective of modern quantum science, motivated by applications ranging from fundamental tests of quantum mechanics and gravity to quantum-enhanced sensing. The experimental difficulty of realizing such superpositions is usually attributed to environmental decoherence mechanisms whose impact depends on the details of the experimental implementation. Here we identify a universal constraint arising from momentum conservation and the quantum nature of the preparation apparatus. Any protocol that places a particle of mass in a spatial superposition with separation necessarily entangles the particle with the center-of-mass degree of freedom of the apparatus responsible for the splitting. The resulting recoil displacement, fixed by conservation of the mass dipole moment, reduces the coherence of the particle when the apparatus is not included as part of the quantum system. For an apparatus of mass , preserving coherence requires the recoil displacement to remain smaller than the coherence length of the apparatus center-of-mass state, leading to a quantitative bound expressible as a constraint on its temperature and on how rigidly the apparatus is anchored to the laboratory frame. We analyze the implications of this bound for current matter-wave interferometry experiments, proposals for gravitationally mediated entanglement, and tests of quantum mechanics near the Planck scale. Our main result, which may seem counterintuitive, is that the recoil of even heavy macroscopic apparatuses can pose a surprisingly strong constraint on the coherence of spatial superpositions of particles with masses well below the Planck mass. Finally, we discuss why the resulting limitation should be regarded as a conservative estimate and under which conditions it can be interpreted as an instance of false decoherence.
9 pages, 2 figures; v.2: unimportant numerical error in Fig. 2 corrected