Edukaizen

Menu
  • News
  • Hubbard 1D
    • Part 1: 1D Hubbard model
    • Part 2: Snake layout and fSWAP
    • Part 3: Qiskit and Fire Opal
    • Part 4: 120-qubit run
    • Part 5: Time-to-answer
    • Part 6: Tensor networks
    • Part 7: Majorana propagation
    • Part 8: Reading heatmaps
    • Part 9: Digital vs cold-atom labs
    • Part 10: Official Monoprop benchmark
  • Hubbard 2D
    • Part 1: 1D to 2D
    • Part 2: Cuprates
    • Part 3: 3×3
    • Part 4: Time
    • Part 5: 4×4
    • Part 6: 6×6 Fez
  • Hadron
    • Part 1: Hadron on a quantum processor
    • Part 2: Quarks and confinement
    • Part 3: SU(2) and LSH
    • Part 4: Hamiltonian and circuit
    • Part 5: Fire Opal
    • Part 6: Classical simulations
    • Part 7: Quantum advantage
  • Black Hole OLE
    • Part 1: What we ran
    • Part 2: How OLE works
    • Part 3: Fire Opal and Kingston
    • Part 4: The tensor-network challenge
    • Part 5: Hawking and scrambling
    • Part 6: What the result proves
    • Part 7: Local toy model
    • Part 8: QGSS26 compatibility
  • Random Graph
    • Start here
    • Part 1: Theory
    • Part 2: Circuit
    • Part 3: Qiskit
    • Part 4: Complexity
    • Part 5: Verification
    • Part 6: Workflow
    • Part 7: Conclusion
  • QOS QML
    • Tutorial: UMI counts to a four-qubit circuit
    • Part 1: The QML task
    • Part 2: QOS theory
    • Part 3: Gene expression to 40 qubits
    • Part 4: JAX to hardware
    • Part 5: Readout and classifier
    • Part 6: 40-qubit result
    • Part 7: Route to quantum advantage
    • Part 8: 60-qubit result
  • Floquet-Ising
    • Part 1: Floquet physics
    • Part 2: Ising cycle
    • Part 3: Two-qubit toy model
    • Part 4: Oscillation and entanglement
    • Part 5: Noise and error mitigation
    • Part 6: Toward 51 qubits
  • Work
    • Quantum Gold
      • Part 1: Why gold is a relativistic quantum problem
      • Part 2: Why the 2025 gold VQE study stalled
      • Part 3: From QE and spin–orbit coupling to Qiskit
      • Part 4: Twelve gold spinor modes on four qubits
      • Part 5: The 24-qubit route: an active window for transport
      • Part 6: 24 qubits on IBM and with Fire Opal
      • Part 7: The road to quantum advantage for gold
      • Part 8: 24 gold spinor modes on IBM with ZNE-PEA
    • HaPPY Gravity
      • Part 1: Gravity as a phase gate
      • Part 2: Bosons and convergence
      • Part 3: The dynamic HaPPY benchmark
      • Part 4: The N=145 classical audit
      • Part 5: MPS and Majorana baselines
      • Part 6: PEA/ZNE and the decisive test
    • Fibonacci Anyons
      • Part 1: Fusion and braiding
      • Part 2: The 3/5/9-qubit ladder
      • Part 3: Why nine qubits were too deep
      • Part 4: Structure-aware simplification
      • Part 5: IBM hardware diagnostic
      • Part 6: Results and open questions
  • Advantage List
Menu

Bosonic gravity models and cutoff convergence

NederlandsEnglish

Part 2 · bosonic simulation

A richer simulator needs more than two levels per mass. Bosonic modes supply that ladder—but every digital calculation must truncate it.

The gravity-inspired interaction

Sabín digitally simulated a Hamiltonian for two quantum harmonic oscillators whose gravitationally mediated interaction generates a non-standard squeezing process. In the effective form used in this project, pairs of excitations are created or annihilated together:

\[H_{AB}=-\hbar g\left(a_A^{\dagger 2}a_B^{\dagger 2}+a_A^2a_B^2\right).\]

A bosonic mode has infinitely many occupation levels, while a qubit register is finite. The simulation therefore selects a maximum occupation. Increasing that cutoff changes both the encoded Hilbert space and the circuit cost.

Convergence before scale

The project first checks the passive gravity/EFT assumptions and then repeats the bosonic calculation at increasing cutoffs. The relevant observables must stop moving within a declared tolerance before the result can be interpreted. A large value of the cutoff is not evidence of correctness by itself.

This stage also exposes a central benchmark-design problem: a physically inspired model can remain classically easy if it has too few modes, too little depth or an exploitable symmetry. Scaling must preserve a meaningful observable while removing accidental shortcuts.

Claim boundary. Cutoff convergence supports the numerical representation of the selected bosonic model. It does not validate quantum gravity as a fundamental theory and does not establish classical hardness.
Project page: HaPPY gravity

  1. Part 1: Gravity as a phase gate
  2. Part 2: Bosons and convergence
  3. Part 3: The dynamic HaPPY benchmark
  4. Part 4: The N=145 classical audit
  5. Part 5: MPS and Majorana baselines
  6. Part 6: PEA/ZNE and the decisive test

Sources and reproducibility

  • Bose et al., A Spin Entanglement Witness for Quantum Gravity
  • Marletto & Vedral, Gravitationally Induced Entanglement
  • Sabín, Digital quantum simulation of quantum gravitational entanglement
  • Pastawski et al., Holographic quantum error-correcting codes
  • IBM Quantum documentation: ZNE and PEA
  • Public code, numerical reports and full 42-value table on GitHub

Project status: 14 August 2026. Numerical values come from the frozen public research artifacts; claim boundaries are deliberately preserved.

Recent Posts

  • Quantum computing-nieuws — 14 augustus 2026
  • IBM Quantum queues surge past 264,000 pending jobs
  • Quantum computing news — August 13, 2026
  • Quantum computing news — August 12, 2026
  • Quantum computing news — August 11, 2026

Recent Comments

No comments to show.

Archives

  • August 2026
  • July 2026
  • May 2026
  • March 2026
  • February 2026
  • September 2024

Categories

  • 10
  • Quantum Computing
  • Uncategorized
©2026 Edukaizen | Theme by SuperbThemes