Quantum Mechanics from Gravity

Shibdas Roy1, 2, 3, ∗
1
Centre for Quantum Engineering, Research and Education (CQuERE),
TCG CREST, Salt Lake, Sector 5, Kolkata 700091, India.
2
Academy of Scientific and Innovative Research (AcSIR), Ghaziabad 201002, India.
3
Department of Physics & Astronomy, University of Florence, via Sansone 1, 50019 Sesto Fiorentino, Italy.
We propose that gravity in curved spacetime yields quantum mechanics in flat spacetime. Quan-
tum mechanics would not exist, if there was no gravity. The universe is general relativistic, and
so, classical and local, in curved spacetime, but the same universe is quantum and nonlocal (New-
tonian), when treated in flat spacetime, for masses below Planck mass. We obtain Heisenberg’s
uncertainty principle from Newtonian gravity, and note the bounds for the position and momentum
uncertainties. We next obtain the quantum Schrödinger equation from a classical Schrödinger equa-
tion, which in turn arises from Newtonian gravity. This classical Schrödinger equation corresponds
to Einstein equation of gravity for linearized Schwarzschild metric in curved spacetime at the weak-
field limit. It then follows that quantum mechanics arises from Riemannian curvatures induced by
small masses. We finally discuss measurement collapse of the wavefunction or gravitational mass-
energy distribution of a particle. Although measurement is nonlocal in flat spacetime, violating Bell
inequality maximally for massless particles, local realism is not violated in actual curved spacetime.
Keywords: Quantum mechanics; Uncertainty principle; Schrödinger equation; Born rule; Quantum interfer-
ence; Wavefunction collapse; Bell nonlocality; Newtonian gravity; General relativity; Schwarzschild metric.

I. INTRODUCTION tion. The Schwarzschild metric is an exact solution of

Quantum mechanics [1] and general relativity [2] are
widely considered to be fundamentally incompatible.
This is because the former is non-classical and non-local,
whereas the latter is classical and local. There are at-
tempts, such as string theory [3] and loop quantum grav-
ity [4], to unify these two realms of physics, in order to ex-
plain the widely expected fundamental quantum nature
of gravity. Most of these existing theories and studies
treat general relativity and quantum mechanics as two
separate theories, required to be unified.
Here, we propose that what is general relativity in
curved spacetime yields quantum mechanics in flat space-
time for masses below Planck mass. Thus, the two the-
ories are essentially two sides of the same coin. If there
was no gravity, there would be no quantum mechanics. In
other words, gravity is classical and local in curved space-
time, but quantum and nonlocal (Newtonian), when
treated in flat spacetime. A related work that may be
a possible explanation for the same is Ref. [5].
While gravity is not really a force in curved spacetime,
it is indeed a force that is quantized, as projected onto the
corresponding flat spacetime. If gravity is not classical
and local in curved spacetime, local Lorentz invariance
(LLI), and therefore, Einstein’s equivalence principle [6]
will be violated. Here, we derive Heisenberg’s uncertainty
principle and Schrödinger equation from Newtonian grav-
ity. When deriving Schrödinger equation from gravity,
we obtain a classical Schrödinger equation in spacetime.
We get Einstein equation for Schwarzschild metric at
the weak-field limit from this classical Schrödinger equa-
∗ roy.shibdas@gmail.com
the vacuum Einstein equation and corresponds to Ricci
flat spacetime, but non-zero Riemannian curvature. It
is this non-zero and finite Riemannian curvature, that
gives rise to quantum mechanics in the corresponding
flat spacetime. Finally, we demonstrate that a stan-
dard measurement collapses the quantum wavefunction
to flat spacetime, thereby reducing the position uncer-
tainties to nearly zero. Further, this process is nonlocal
and yet without faster-than-light signaling, violating Bell
inequality maximally for massless particles.
The main idea that quantum mechanics must have ori-
gins in (classical) gravity arises from the fact that there
cannot be a “free” particle in the universe, since it must
be subject to at least gravity, which is the weakest of all
known forces. The reason is that anything of non-zero
energy would induce non-zero spacetime curvature, no
matter how tiny, and so, when quantum mechanics de-
scribes the dynamics of what we call a free particle, it, in
fact, describes that of a particle that at least induces non-
zero spacetime curvature. And we show that smaller this
induced curvature, it gives rise to larger quantum effects.
This is because the curvature term has the radius in de-
nominator, and so, smaller the curvatures induced by a
particle, the larger would be these radii, manifesting as
position uncertainties upto a point determined by a po-
sition horizon, that corresponds to (but equals only for
Planck mass) the Schwarzschild radius (event horizon).
Newtonian gravity is the small curvature (and not flat
spacetime) limit of general relativity. In particular, for
small masses and large radii, the Schwarzschild metric
from general relativity yields the linear weak-field metric,
depicting Newtonian gravity. This is why we derive un-
certainty principle and Schrödinger equation from New-
tonian gravity, assuming flat spacetime, what is rather
curved spacetime, even if the curvature is tiny. We show
 2

that quantum effects, like non-locality, arise from ignor- gravitational force, we get:
ing these small curvatures and treating the dynamics in
2dp Gm2
flat spacetime. This is because Newtonian gravity ap- Fg = =−
pears to have an infinite speed, when treated in flat space- dt dx2 (4)
time, but actually has a speed of that of light, when seen dx Gm2
⇒Vg = 2dp =− ,
as the small curvature limit from general relativity. dt dx
and since we have dx
dt ≤ c, we get from above for non-zero
finite gravity amongst the particles:
II. HEISENBERG’S UNCERTAINTY
PRINCIPLE FROM GRAVITY Gm2
| ∆x || ∆p |≥ , (5)
2c
Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle is a central tenet where the equality holds in the relativistic limit, as ev-
in quantum mechanics. The uncertainty principle states ident from (2) and (3). Here, we have absorbed the
that the product of the uncertainties in two complemen- minus sign within | ∆p |. Notice that we are treating
tary variables, such as the position x and momentum p the particles (under gravitational interaction) in the spe-
of a particle, has a non-zero lower bound [1]: cial relativistic flat spacetime, where the dynamics of the
particles can be faithfully represented by Newtonian me-
ℏ chanics as in (4), even for relativistic velocities, as long as
| ∆x || ∆p |≥ , (1)
2 the Lorentz factor is accounted for wherever applicable,
where ℏ is the reduced Planck’s constant. Other variants such as for the momentum p in (4) [2].
of the uncertainty principle, such as time-energy or en- Now, the quantity in (5) is minimum q if the mass m of
tropic uncertainty principles [7, 8], can be derived from each particle is Planck mass mP = ℏc G , because general
the original position-momentum formulation. While the relativistic effects (spacetime curvature), even if small,
mathematical origin of the uncertainty principle is in cannot be ignored below Planck mass, as we will see later:
non-commutativity of observables of canonically conju-
gate variables, we show that the non-zero lower bound in Gm2P Gℏc ℏ
| ∆x || ∆p |≥ = = . (6)
the uncertainty principle has its implicit physical origin 2c 2cG 2
in non-diminishing finite gravity between particles. The above is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Notice
that Planck mass is the unit of mass in Planck units,
originally derived by dimensional analysis by Planck [9],
A. Newtonian Gravity without using quantum mechanics. Although Planck
mass has Planck’s constant involved, there is nothing par-
pLet us consider two particles of energy Em = ticularly quantum about it, since it is simply a mass of
m2 c4 + p2 c2 each, where m is the rest mass and p is ∼ 22 micrograms, which is just as classical as any other
the relativistic momentum of each particle, and c is the mass in a classical theory, such as general relativity. Of
speed of light in vacuum. Also, consider that there can course, if the uncertainty principle from quantum me-
be no other interaction between the two particles except chanics, and therefore, Planck’s constant was not already
gravitational interaction. known, we would not know what mass to use as m for (5)
The Newtonian gravitational potential energy is: to be minimum. So, we strive to arrive at quantum me-
chanics from classical gravity, using our prior knowledge
Gm2 of quantum mechanics to suggest that the quantity in (5)
Vg = − , (2)
| ∆x | would be minimum for m = mP , which is otherwise just
a classical mass as in a classical theory.
where G is Newton’s gravitational constant, and | ∆x |= Note how we treat the distance between the particles
dx =| x1 − x2 | is the distance between the (one- as each particle’s position uncertainty and the momen-
dimensional) spatial coordinates x1 and x2 of the centers tum change of each particle as its momentum uncertainty.
of mass (CM) of the two particles. If | ∆p |= dp is the The reason will become clear later. Meanwhile, consider
change in momentum due to gravity of each particle, we that each mass m has a continuous distribution of mass
can write: density ρ(x), so that the gravitational potential produced
by each mass m is given by [2]:
Vg = 2 | ∆p | c, (3)
ρ(x′ )
Z
Gm
Φ(x) = − = −G dx′3 , (7)
because there is no “free” particle in the universe. | ∆x | | x − x′ |
When we treat a particle as free with Hamiltonian
p such that the gravitational potential energy between the
m2 c4 + p2 c2 , it must actually have an additional mo-
masses can be written as [10]:
mentum ∆p within p due to at least gravity acting on
ρ(x′ )
Z
it. The factor 2 arises above because of attractive na-
Vg = mΦ(x) = −Gm dx′3 . (8)
ture of gravity. Moreover, if we consider the Newtonian | x − x′ |
 3

Then, assuming spherical symmetry and independence The upper bound on the uncertainty in momentum of a
of the spatial distribution ρ(x) of mass m, the matter particle is given by:
distribution is Gaussian in nature. Indeed, the minimum
uncertainty state in quantum mechanics is the following | ∆p |≤ mc, (15)
center-of-mass wavefunction, which is a Gaussian spatial since | ∆p | cannot exceed mc without creating a new
distribution [11]: particle. Thus,
−x2
   
1 1 ℏ
Ψ(x) = p exp , (9) | ∆x |≥ . (16)
2π | ∆x |2 2 | ∆x |2 2 mc
In summary, we get the following bounds for the uncer-
so that ρ(x) = mΨ† (x)Ψ(x) at some time t, as we see
tainties in position and momentum of a particle, owing
later. Thus, the uncertainty principle is physically a
to gravity:
consequence of non-zero finite gravity between particles.
Unless there is infinite or zero gravity between particles,
   
1 ℏ ℏ
it is impossible to ascertain the position or momentum, ≤| ∆x |≤ 4 ,
2 mc γmv (17)
respectively, of (the center of) each particle to infinite γmv
precision. ≤| ∆p |≤ mc.
8
Notice that although our initial treatment with indi-
vidual particles yields the uncertainty principle (6) intu- Points to Note:
itively, in modern quantum mechanics, the uncertainty ˆ Newtonian gravity is the weak-field limit of Ein-
principle is rather statistical, in the sense that | ∆x | is stein’s general relativity [2], and is given by
in (9), describing measurements on an ensemble of par- (88). We derived Heisenberg’s uncertainty prin-
ticles or many measurements on a single particle. Our ciple from Newtonian gravity. However, we used
argument here mirrors the Heisenberg’s microscope ar- the Schwarzschild diameter from general relativity
gument in the early development of quantum mechanics. to determine the previously unknown upper bound
to the position uncertainty and lower bound to the
momentum uncertainty, since the Newtonian met-
B. Uncertainty Limits ric resembles the Schwarzschild metric at the small
curvature limit.
The Schwarzschild radius rs depicts the ability of mass
m of a particle to cause curvature in spacetime, and is ˆ Eqs. (11) and (14) with p = mc are the same for
obtained as an exact solution to Einstein’s field equations m equal to Planck mass. Note that (14) lies inside
for the gravitational field of a non-rotating, spherically of (11) for m greater than Planck mass, whereas
symmetric body of mass m (see Ref. [2]): (14) lies outside of (11) for m smaller than Planck
mass. This means quantum mechanics would be
2Gm prominent for masses below Planck mass. More on
rs = . (10) this later.
c2
Then, set: ˆ Note that if we have G → 0 in (11), i.e. gravity is
zero, then we have ℏ → 0 in (17), so that the un-
4Gm certainty product in (6) would have a lower bound
| ∆x |= 2rs = . (11)
c2 of zero, implying that we would have no quantum
mechanics at all.
Substituting (11) in (5), we get:
ˆ Notice that we treated the distances and momen-
Gm2
 
4Gm tum changes from Newtonian gravity as each par-
| ∆p |≥
c2 2c (12) ticle’s position and momentum uncertainties, re-
mc 1 spectively. This is true for masses below Planck
⇒ | ∆p |≥ = p.
8 8 mass, although the position uncertainties are not
zero but not directly observable for masses above
In general, for particles not propagating at the speed of Planck mass. Again, this will be evident later.
light c, we get
ˆ Notice that with increasing mass, while the cur-
p γmv
| ∆p |≥ = , (13) vature of spacetime increases, the ranges of uncer-
8 8 tainties in position fall, so that for larger masses
where
p v < c is the velocity of the particle, and γ = they become negligible in comparison to the ac-
1/ 1 − v 2 /c2 is the Lorentz factor [2]. Thus, tual masses. So, quantum effects arise from space-
  time curvature caused by small enough mass scales,
4ℏ ℏ i.e. for masses below Planck mass. Again, this will
| ∆x |≤ =4 . (14)
p γmv be clearer later.
 4

ˆ Notice that in a non-Euclidean space, there is no Considering the regime of small mass m and large radius
quantity which has all the properties of the Eu- r (which corresponds to dx/2 here) in the Schwarzschild
clidean radius-vector. So, the radius coordinate in metric, required for Newtonian weak-field approxima-
the Schwarzschild metric is not a distance from any tion, the above equality clearly holds, since r is large for
“center” of mass [2]. It is just the circumference, di- sufficiently small masses even with relativistic velocities.
vided by 2π, of a sphere centered around the mass, Assuming the bodies at rest initially, the energy of each
and is smaller than the proper radius by the Lorentz body, with gravity acting on them, is:
factor. However, since we are considering the small
curvature limit of the Schwarzschild metric, where
p
Eg = γmc2 = m2 c4 + | ∆p |2 c2
the weak-field approximation for Newtonian grav- s s

Gm2
2
G2 m2 (20)
ity holds, the radius coordinate in our case is a dis- = m c + −
2 4 2
= mc 1 + 4 ,
tance from a point, which almost coincides with, 2dx 4c (dx)2
and thus, can be treated as the “center” of mass. 1
where γ = √ is the Lorentz factor [2], such that
1−v 2 /c2
ˆ Such a weak-field approximation will hold, as long | ∆p |= γmv, v being the velocity of the body arising
as the Schwarzschild metric can be linearized as in from gravity.
(51), i.e. when either or both of the following con- Now, let us denote a vector, Ψ(x, t) := Êm , where
ditions are satisfied: (i) the mass is small, (ii) the
Êm = mc2 . We treat Ψ(x, t) as a (wave-) function, and
radius is large. If the radius is inversely propor-
we take change in this wavefunction dΨ(x, t) as a vector,
tional to the momentum, as we would have here,
it would be large, when either the mass is suffi- corresponding to Êg , because this is the minimum energy
ciently small (below Planck mass), or the velocity of the particle, given that gravity is the weakest of all
is sufficiently small (non-relativistic), but not nec- forces. Since we have −γ 2 m2 c4 +p m2 c4 + | ∆p |2 c2 = 0
essarily both at the same time. Nonetheless, it is from (20), where Eg can also be − m2 c4 + | ∆p |2 c2 for
when both the mass and velocity are small, that antimatter, we equivalently write:
Newtonian gravity induces unnoticeable spacetime
 2 2 
2 G m
curvature, and therefore, quantum mechanics is the (dΨ(x, t)) + + 1 Ψ(x, t)2 = 0, (21)
4c4 (dx)2
most prominent. This will become clearer later.
where
s
G2 m2
III. SCHRÖDINGER EQUATION FROM dΨ(x, t) = −iÊg = −i 1+ Ψ(x, t). (22)
GRAVITY 4c4 (dx)2
The above ensures unitarity (in flat spacetime), given
The Schrödinger equation is another foundational as- that the Lie algebra of the unitary group is generated by
pect of quantum mechanics. Schrödinger equation de- skew-Hermitian operators. Eq. (19) yields:
scribes the time evolution of a closed (noiseless) quantum
Gm2 Gm
system: dx = ≥ 2, (23)
2 | ∆p | c 2c
∂Ψ(x, t)
iℏ = ĤΨ(x, t), (18) since | ∆p | cannot exceed mc, without creating another
∂t particle. Let
where Ψ(x, t) is the wavefunction for a particle, and Ĥ is Gm
the Hamiltonian of the system. A key requirement for the ds := 2 , (24)
2c
Schrödinger equation is that the wavefunction must sat- which is one-fourth the Schwarzschild radius. Here, ds
isfy Born’s rule [12]. That is, the square of the magnitude is a (flat) spacetime interval rather than a spatial-only
of the wavefunction is proportional to the probability of interval:
finding the particle at a spatial location upon position  2  2
measurement. We obtain a classical Schrödinger equa- 2 2 2 ds cdt
ds = (cdt) − dx ⇒ +1= . (25)
tion in spacetime, from which the quantum Schrödinger dx dx
equation arises for non-zero finite gravity, by treating The reason why the above is taken as a flat spacetime
time separately from space, at small enough scales com- interval rather than a spatial-only interval will be clear
pared to the actual masses. later. Then, we rewrite (21) as:
 2
2 cdt
A. Newtonian Gravity (dΨ(x, t)) = − Ψ(x, t)2
dx
dΨ(x, t) −ic (26)
From (2) and (3), we have: ⇒ = Ψ(x, t)
dt dx
Gm2 dΨ(x, t) −i
2 | ∆p | c = − . (19) ⇒ = (2 | ∆p | c) Ψ(x, t).
dx dt 2 | ∆x || ∆p |
 5

Let us denote Ĥ := 2 | ∆p | c = Vg . Then, using the Then, (31) becomes:

lower bound from (6) in (26), we get: "  2 #
2 ds1 2
| Ψ(s1 ) | = 1 − [Ψ(s1 ) − Ψ(s0 )] ,
dΨ(x, t) cdt
iℏ = ĤΨ(x, t), (27) " 2 # (33)
dt 
ds2 2
2
| Ψ(s2 ) | = 1 − [Ψ(s2 ) − Ψ(s0 )] ,
cdt
which is Schrödinger equation. Since we take the Hamil-
tonian of the system as Ĥ = Vg , the equation (27) de- where Ψ(sj ) := Ψ(xj , t), j = 1, 2, and Ψ(s0 ) = Ψ(x0 , t0 ).
termines Schrödinger equation of the gravitational wave, Clearly, we must have:
2 2
arising from the kinetic energy corresponding to the grav-
 
dx1 ds1
itational potential energy Vg . =1− ≤ 1,
cdt cdt
Using the limits from (17) with p = mc, we can write  2  2 (34)
Schrödinger equation in spacetime (22) as: dx2 ds2
=1− ≤ 1.
cdt cdt
s  4 From (32), we get:
m
dΨ(x, t) = −i 1+ k Ψ(x, t), (28) ds21 + ds22 = dx21 + dx22 = (cdt)2
mP
2  2
(35)

dx1 dx2
where ⇒ + = 1.
cdt cdt
1 Thus, we see that | Ψ(x1 , t) |2 and | Ψ(x2 , t) |2 represent
√ ≤ k ≤ 1. (29) the probabilities of finding the body in the spatial loca-
2 2
tions x1 and x2 , respectively, at time t, upon position
measurement, such that these two probabilities add up
Evidently, (28) is a classical equation, independent of ℏ,
to unity.
in spacetime. Notice that there is nothing in (28), that
requires to be vectors or operators rather than variables.
However, we derived from (21) the quantum Schrödinger C. Quantum Interference
equation (27) in complex Hilbert space, obeying Born’s
rule, as we see next. This is why we treated quantities
Quantum interference is the interference of the same
like Em as vectors or Vg as operators to comply with
quantum wavefunction with itself, as opposed to classi-
standard quantum mechanics.
cal wave interference, where two separate waves interfere
with each other.
Let us consider the double-slit experiment with two
B. Schrödinger Equation satisfies Born’s Rule slits A and B. The wavefunction of a photon (or an
electron or some other quantum particle) through the
double-slit is:
Let us consider that the wavefunction is initially
Ψ(x0 , t0 ), localized at the spatial location x0 at time t0 , Ψ(x, t) = ΨA (x, t) + ΨB (x, t), (36)
and then, is spread out across two spatial positions, x1 where ΨA (x, t) and ΨB (x, t) are parts of the wavefunc-
and x2 , at time t. Then, tion through A and B, respectively. Here,
dxA
dΨ(x1 , t) = Ψ(x0 + dx1 , t0 + dt) − Ψ(x0 , t0 ), ΨA (x, t) = i [Ψ(x, t) − Ψ(x0 , t0 )] ,
(30) cdt (37)
dΨ(x2 , t) = Ψ(x0 + dx2 , t0 + dt) − Ψ(x0 , t0 ), dxB
ΨB (x, t) = i [Ψ(x, t) − Ψ(x0 , t0 )] ,
cdt
which yield, using (26): where A and B are labels for the position uncertain-
 2 ties corresponding to the slits, and Ψ(x0 , t0 ) is the initial
dx1 2 state. Then, since the position uncertainty of the photon
| Ψ(x1 , t) |2 = [Ψ(x1 , t) − Ψ(x0 , t0 )] , must span both the slits to yield the interference pattern,
cdt
 2 (31) we must have:
2 dx2 2
| Ψ(x2 , t) | = [Ψ(x2 , t) − Ψ(x0 , t0 )] , dx = dxA + dxB . (38)
cdt
From (37) and (38), we get:
where Ψ(xj , t) := Ψ(x0 + dxj , t0 + dt), j = 1, 2. Now, dx
Ψ(x, t) = i [Ψ(x, t) − Ψ(x0 , t0 )]
denote: cdt
 A (39)
dxB

dx
2 2 =i + [Ψ(x, t) − Ψ(x0 , t0 )] ,
ds21 = (cdt) − dx21 , ds22 = (cdt) − dx22 . (32) cdt cdt
which agrees with (36). Then, the probability function
of the wavefunction Ψ(x, t) of the photon is:
 6

| Ψ(x, t) |2 = Ψ† (x, t)Ψ(x, t)

" 2  B 2 #
dxA dx dxA dxB dxB dxA 2
= + + + [Ψ(x, t) − Ψ(x0 , t0 )] (40)
cdt cdt cdt cdt cdt cdt
= | ΨA (x, t) |2 + | ΨB (x, t) |2 +Ψ†A (x, t)ΨB (x, t) + Ψ†B (x, t)ΨA (x, t),

where Ψ†A (x, t)ΨB (x, t) + Ψ†B (x, t)ΨA (x, t) is the extra
term causing quantum interference. If this term is posi-
tive, it leads to constructive interference, otherwise if it
is negative, it leads to destructive interference. Accord-
ingly, the wavefunction yields the interference pattern of
dark and bright patches on the screen past the slits in
the double-slit experiment.
D. Uncertainty Limits
Points to Note:
ˆ Notice from (28) that the wavefunction Ψ(x, t) orig-
inally used in Schrödinger equation determines the
state of the energy, corresponding to a system hav-
ing no interaction. That is, Ψ(x, t) is proportional
to the energy of a closed system in flat spacetime,
and (27) describes the time evolution of the system,
usually treated as a ‘free’ particle, in flat spacetime
(25).

For the lower bound of the momentum uncertainty in ˆ A flat spacetime interval is written as ds2 =
(17) with p = mc, we get from (27): (cdt)2 − dx2 . This means that the first (spatial)
dimension is x1 = ix and the second (time) di-
dΨ(x, t) 1 1 mension is x2 = ct in relativity, such that ds2 =
iℏ = mc2 Ψ(x, t) = Êm Ψ(x, t). (41) √
dt 4 4 2 2
dx1 + dx2 , where i = −1 is the imaginary unit.
2 2
Note that if we set ℏω = m2mc , where ω is the angular This is why we have (26). In other words, the imag-
frequency of a harmonic oscillator, and p = mc, then inary unit i in the Schrödinger equation is the same
p2 i that arises in relativity in one of the coordinates
the vacuum energy equals ℏ2 ω = 41 mc2 = 12 2m . This is among space and time. This is why complex num-
usually the Hamiltonian for the vacuum energy of the bers are inevitable for quantum mechanics [14].
particle in the non-relativistic limit, i.e. upon replacing c
by v ≪ c.
ˆ Note that (28) will be minimum for m = 0,
This is evident from the time-energy uncertainty prin-
i.e. when there is no particle:
ciple:
| ∆t || ∆E |=| ∆t | (2 | ∆p || ∆x | / | ∆t |) ≥ ℏ, (42) dΨ(x, t) = −iΨ(x, t), (47)
p mv
given (6). Then, upon substituting | ∆p |= 8 = 8 , we which can be non-zero, and therefore, this cor-
get: responds to quantum vacuum fluctuations of flat
1 spacetime. Note that even for massless particles,
| ∆E |= 2 | ∆p | v = mv 2 . (43) (27) becomes:
4
In general, we will have:
dΨ(x, t) pi c
dΨ(x, t) 1 iℏ = Ψ(x, t), (48)
iℏ = γmvcΨ(x, t). (44) dt 4
dt 4
1
implying k = 2√ , where mi is the dynamical mass,
The above Hamiltonian 14 γmvc is the vacuum energy of 2
the particle in the relativistic limit. and pi = mi c the momentum, of a massless particle.
For the upper bound of the momentum uncertainty in
(17) with p = mc, we get from (27): ˆ The vacuum fluctuations of flat spacetime arise
from only temporal profile of the wavefunction
dΨ(x, t) Ψ(x, t). This is because (47) implies that we have:
iℏ = 2mc2 Ψ(x, t). (45)
dt
 2  2
We will, in general, have: cdt ds
= + 1 = 1 ⇒ cdt = dx, ds = 0. (49)
dx dx
dΨ(x, t)
= κmc2 + αpc Ψ(x, t).


iℏ (46)
dt Thus, dt completely determines dx, which deter-
The above equation is the linear form of relativistic mines | ∆p | in (6) to yield (48) from (26). Note
Schrödinger equation (assuming a single spatial dimen- that the spacetime is truly flat when even pi = 0,
sion), originally considered by Dirac [13], with α2 = κ2 = i.e. the kinetic energy is also zero, implying k = 0,
1. and therefore, no vacuum fluctuations.
 7

1
IV. QUANTUM MECHANICS FROM classical mechanics in flat spacetime for 0 ≤ k < 2√ 2
.
GENERAL RELATIVITY For k = 1, the gravity is not infinite, and k evidently
cannot exceed unity, so that the singularity at the center
We now get Einstein equation for Schwarzschild met- of a black hole cannot physically exist.
ric from our classical Schrödinger equation in spacetime. Clearly, k = 0 corresponds to Minkowski metric:
Since this metric is an exact solution of vacuum Einstein  
equation, it is in Ricci flat spacetime, but with non-zero 1 0 0 0
Riemannian curvature. This non-zero but finite Rieman-  0 −1 0 0 
ηαβ = 
 0 0 −r2
 (55)
nian curvature gives rise to quantum mechanics in flat 0 
spacetime. 0 0 0 −r2 sin2 θ
The flat (Minkowski) metric line element is:
in Einstein equation:
ds2 = (cdt)2 − dr2 − r2 dθ2 − r2 sin2 θdϕ2 , (50) 1 8πG
Rαβ − gαβ R = 4 Tαβ , (56)
and Schwarzschild metric line element is given as: 2 c
    where gαβ is the metric of the geometry, Rαβ is Ricci
2 2Gm 2 2Gm curvature tensor, R is Ricci curvature scalar, and Tαβ
ds = 1 − 2 (cdt) − 1 + 2 dr2
c r c r (51) is the stress-energy tensor. That is, for k = 0, we have
− r2 dθ2 − r2 sin2 θdϕ2 gαβ = ηαβ above, such that the line element is (50).
In general, for 0 ≤ k ≤ 1, we get:
Gm
for small c2 r in the coordinate system (t, r, θ, ϕ).
gαβ = ηαβ + hαβ (57)

in (56), where
A. Schwarzschild Metric
 2 
−8k 2 γv m
c m2 0 0 0
Consider two non-rotating, spherically symmetric bod- P
m2
−8k 2 γv
 
ies, at rest, of energy, Em := mc2 each. Also, consider hαβ = 
 0 c m2P 0 0  .

(58)
that there can be no other interaction between the two
 0 0 0 0
bodies except gravitational interaction. Then, the New- 0 0 0 0
tonian gravitational potential energy between the two 1
bodies is: For k = √
2 2
, (57) is the Schwarzschild metric:

Gm2 2Gm
 
1− 0 0 0
Vg = − , (52) c2 r
dr  0 −1 − 2Gm
c2 r 0 0 
gαβ =   , (59)
p  0 0 −r2 0 
where dr = dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 is the radial distance be- 0 0 0 −r2 sin2 θ
tween the centers of mass (CM) of the two bodies. Here,
dx, dy and dz are the distances along the three spatial with r = rq := γmv 2ℏ
. Also, for k = 1, the metric is
coordinates x, y and z between them. Clearly, the above ℏ
still (59) with r = 4γmv . Thus, the overall metric is
is simply a 3D extension of (2).
Then, in general, we can write Schrödinger equation in Schwarzschild for 0 ≤ k ≤ 1.
spacetime (28) as follows: The Schwarzschild metric is an exact solution of (56),
called the vacuum Einstein equation when Rαβ = 0,
s 4 i.e. Ricci curvature is zero. However, the Riemann tensor
γ 2 v2

m is non-zero [2]; in particular, the below component:
dΨ(r, t) = −i 1 + 2 k Ψ(r, t), (53)
c mP
1 ∂ 2 gtt −2Gm
Rtrtr = − = 2 3 (60)
including appropriate relativistic scaling. If we treat 2 ∂r 2 c r
this equation in flat spacetime, we can obtain the quan- 1
tum Schrödinger equation for the gravitational wave yields for k = √
2 2
:
with Hamiltonian Ĥ, arising from the kinetic energy
corresponding to the gravitational potential energy Vg , −2Gm γv m2 2Gm
htt = ⇒ = 2
i.e. Ĥ := Vg : c2 r c m2P c r
(61)
γmv ℏ ℏ
dΨ(r, t) ⇒ (2r) = ⇒ dpdr ≥ ,
iℏ = ĤΨ(r, t). (54) 8 2 2
dt
where dp ≥ γmv8 and dr ≤ 2rq = γmv 4ℏ
. The above is
1
Now, k = corresponds to the Schwarzschild radius,
√
2 2 Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, where dp is the mo-
and so, marks the quantum-classical boundary. We get mentum uncertainty and dr is the position uncertainty.
 8

So, the position and momentum operators do not com- B. Dependence on Radius
mute in flat spacetime, due to nonzero Riemannian cur-
vature of gravity. Clearly, there would be no quantum
mechanics, if the Riemann tensor was zero. Moreover,
the singularity at the center of a black hole might not
physically exist, since there can be no ‘point’ particle It may have appeared that (57) is independent of r.
with infinite mass-energy density, as the minimum radius However, note from (61) that we get γmvr = 2ℏ, when
ℏ 1
of a particle is 4mc . we have k = 2√ 2
. Then, we get the metric (57) as:

2
1 − 8k 2 γv
 m 2ℏ

c m2 γmvr 0 0 0
P
2
−1 − 8k 2 γv m 2ℏ
 
gαβ = 
 0 c m2P γmvr 0 0 ,

(62)
2
 0 0 −r 0 
0 0 0 −r2 sin2 θ

which is the same as (59). Similarly, when k = 1, we will have 4γmvr = ℏ in (61). Then, we get (57) as:

2
1 − 8k 2 γv
 m ℏ

c m2 4γmvr 0 0 0
P
2
−1 − 8k 2 γv m
 ℏ 
gαβ = 
 0 c m2P 4γmvr 0 0 ,

(63)
2
 0 0 −r 0 
2 2
0 0 0 −r sin θ

which ish again ithe same as (59). Likewise, this holds for
all k ∈ 2√ 1
,1 .
2 all of the mass-energy (of a black hole) should be
Points to Note:
ˆ Note that (61) implies that beyond four times the
reduced de Broglie wavelength of the particle, the
quantum coherence of the particle would quickly
decohere owing to gravity, until it is classical (even)
in flat spacetime. This is because | Rtrtr | in (60)
rapidly becomes negligible with increasing r for r >
γv
rs = 2Gm c2 , which is the same as rp = c rq for
m = mP .
ˆ The reason why the quantity 2r depicts p position
“spreads” is that the time dilation factor 1 − rs /r
tends to zero, and so, time appears to stop, at
r = rs , as seen by anyone from outside the event
horizon. This means that a particle at one end in-
side the event horizon is simultaneously also at the
other end inside the event horizon, as seen from
outside the event horizon.
ˆ In general, if m ̸= mP , we will have
 2
m radius rp is slightly larger than rs , but we cannot
rs = × rp ,
mP

larger than rs . However, for m ≪ mP , the maxi-
ℏ
where rp = 2 mc , that we call the position hori-
zon of mass m.
ˆ The position horizon rp , scaled by c/(γv), equals rq
and is actually the maximum radius within which
confined in Schwarzschild geometry. Since this ra-
dius 2ℏ
p is inversely proportional to mass m, | Rtrtr |
in (60) quickly reduces for decreasing mass for
r = rq , such that (57) increasingly approaches (55)
as expected. By contrast, | Rtrtr | increases for
decreasing mass m for r = rs , and so the mass-
energy cannot be confined within rs , that is directly
proportional to mass m. In fact, black holes of
mass below mP cannot even exist, since the mass-
energy must be confined within a maximum radius
rq , which is beyond rs .
ˆ If m < mP in (64), the position horizon rp lies out-
side the Schwarzschild radius rs for the given mass
m, such that quantum mechanics becomes increas-
ingly prominent with rapidly
h irising position spreads
1
encoded in r for k ∈ 2√ 2
, 1 assuming flat space-
time, unless we account for the small but non-zero
finite Riemannian curvature. Notice that for a mass
m just below mP , such as say a grain of sand, the
(64)
notice it, since the actual radius of the grain is much
mum radius rq of the wavefunction can be so much
larger than rs , that it can be much larger than the
 9

actual radius of the particle, and so quantum effects
are significantly observable.
By contrast, if m > mP in (64), the position hori-
zon rp lies inside the Schwarzschild radius rs for
the given mass m, such that it may never be possi-
ble to directly observe non-zero quantum effects for
masses larger than Planck mass even in flat space-
time. That is to not say that a mass larger than
Planck mass does not have non-zero position un-
certainties (of its center); the uncertainties are just
smaller than the Schwarzschild radius, so that they
may never be observable. Please see Fig. 1.
This is why, although a human scale object of a
record effective mass 10 kg has been taken to its
ground state [15], the maximum recorded mass that
could be brought into quantum entanglement is
70 picograms [16], or the maximum recorded mass
that could be brought into quantum superposition
is 16.2 micrograms [17], which are smaller than
Planck mass (∼ 22 micrograms).
ˆ Notice that Rtrtr in (60) can be rewritten as:
 2
rs m rp
Rtrtr =− 3 =− × . (65)
r mP r3
With decreasing mass m < mP , | Rtrtr | in (65)
is small but non-negligible as compared to the ac-
tual mass, and only becomes negligible for the mass
beyond r > rp , instead of beyond r > rs already.
However, with increasing mass m > mP , | Rtrtr | in
(65) becomes negligible as compared to the actual
mass (even if not small) beyond r > rp already,
even before r > rs .
noting that the geometry in the Schwarzschild metric is
characterized by just the total mass m of the source, and
not on how that mass is radially distributed inside the
source [2].
This is true for m < mP , for which directly observ-
able quantum effects can manifest. For m < mP , the
Schwarzschild radius rs is smaller than the maximum ra-
dius of the mass distribution, which is the position hori-
zon rp with p = mc. However, with a macroscopic mea-
surement device entangled with the particle, the com-
bined mass M of the particle and the measurement de-
vice is usually larger than mP , such that the position
horizon rp lies inside the Schwarzschild radius rs .
Consider position measurement of a particle in an ini-
tial superposition state (in flat spacetime),
1
ψ(r) = √ (ψ1 (r) + ψ2 (r)) , (67)
2
where ψ1 (r) and ψ2 (r) are wave packets well localized
around r1 and r2 , respectively. If ϕ1 (R) and ϕ2 (R) are
two localized wavefunctions of the measurement device,
centered around R1 and R2 , respectively, then the com-
bined state during the measurement (in flat spacetime)
is:
1
Ψ(r, R) = √ (ψ1 (r)ϕ1 (R) + ψ2 (r)ϕ2 (R)) . (68)
2
The positions R = R1,2 correspond to the particle being
around positions r1,2 . Now, let Υ be the radius of the
combined mass distribution, whereas rp is the maximum
radius of the wavefunction Ψ(r, R) of the combined sys-
tem. Then, (51) modifies to the interior Schwarzschild
metric for r = rp < rs < Υ, where now rs = 2GM c2 and
2ℏ
rp = M c :

2GM r2 2GM r2
   
2 2
V. QUANTUM NONLOCALITY FROM ds = 1 − 2 3 (cdt) − 1 + 2 3 dr2
c Υ c Υ
GRAVITY
− r2 dθ2 − r2 sin2 θdϕ2 .
A. Wavefunction Collapse
(69)

This is because if the mass M is a spherical distribution

The gravitational field is classical in curved spacetime, of radius Υ and density ρ = V M 4 3
(Υ) , where V (Υ) = 3 πΥ ,
sourced by the stress-energy tensor Tαβ in (56). However, then mass contained within r < Υ is M (r) = V (r)ρ =
it is quantum in flat spacetime, sourced by the expecta- r3 2GM (r) r2
Υ3 M , so that = 2GM
c2 Υ3 .
tion value of Tαβ , i.e. ⟨Ψ | T̂αβ | Ψ⟩, where | Ψ⟩ is as in c2 r
For standard measurement, we would usually have
(54) in flat spacetime. The reason is that the Hamilto-
m ≪ mP < M , such that we have Υ ≫ rp . In this
nian can be written from (8) as (see Ref. [18]):
limit, the above metric approaches the flat metric (50)
Z
ρ(r′ , t) for r = rp . This means that the measurement collapses
Ĥ = −Gm dr′3 the wavefunction, such that it indeed yields measurement
| r − r′ |
(66) outcomes R = R1 or R = R2 , which implies that the par-
| Ψ(r′ , t) |2
Z
= −Gm2 dr′3 , ticle is found half of the times around r1 and half of the
| r − r′ | times around r2 . Note that larger the radius Υ of the
combined mass distribution, and accordingly smaller the
which is obtained for ρ(r, t) = mΨ† (r, t)Ψ(r, t) (see radius rp of the wavefunction, the tinier will be the term
Ref. [18]) at time t. Thus, the wavefunction in our case 2GM r 2
indeed coincides with the gravitational mass distribution c2 Υ3 , that makes (69) approach closer to (50). Notice
rs rs rp2 rp3
(please see Ref. [18]), not just for the Gaussian case (9), that compared to (51), we will have rp ≫ Υ3 ⇒ Υ3 ≪1
 10

FIG. 1. Comparisons of the Schwarzschild radius rs = 2Gm/c2 , called the event horizon, and the maximum radius rq =
(c/γv)rp = 2ℏ/(γmv) of thep wavefunction Ψ(r, t) (depicted by the shaded region) for mass m less than, equal to, and greater
than Planck mass mP = ℏc/G, respectively. Here, v = Gm2 /ℏ is the escape velocity at proper radius rq′ = γrq = 2ℏ/(mv),
and determines the minimum velocity for the particle to exhibit quantum nature in flat spacetime. Also, rp = 2ℏ/(mc) is
called the position horizon with v p
= c. Here, c is the speed of light in vacuum, ℏ is reduced Planck’s constant, G is Newton’s
gravitational constant, and γ = 1/ 1 − v 2 /c2 is Lorentz factor, that equals 1 for v ≪ c. The Schwarzschild metric (51) equals
the weak-field metric (88) for small m. Eq. (5) is minimum for Planck mass, since v = c for m = mP .

for Υ ≫ rp . In this limit, we have with p = M c from (61):
Mc

r3
(2rp ) = Υp3 ℏ2 ∼ 0 ⇒ dpdr ≥ 0. Thus, the uncer-
8
tainty product has a lower bound of nearly zero instead
of ℏ2 , implying that the position and momentum observ-
ables commute in flat spacetime. In other words, the
wavefunction collapses because the curvature at r = rp
vanishes compared to what it was before the measure-
ment.
By contrast, if the measurement device has also mass
much below Planck mass, so that the combined mass M
of the measurement device and the quantum particle is
much smaller than Planck mass, then the wavefunction
would not collapse. For example, if it is a photon that
measures an electron, the two would rather just get en-
tangled (in flat spacetime), and the wavefunction would
not collapse, since the interior Schwarzschild metric does
not hold, but it is the (exterior) Schwarzschild metric
that holds, at r = rp > Υ in this case.
B. Quantum Nonlocality
Consider two distant parties Alice and Bob each having
one of the two parts of the wavefunction of two entangled
(in flat spacetime) particles A and B:
1 lapse, this would mean that the measurement collapses
Ψ(rA , rB ) = √ ψ1 (rA )χ1 (rB ) + ψ2 (rA )χ2 (rB ) ,


2 Alice’s wavefunction ψ(rA ), such that it yields measure-
(70)
where ψ1 (rA ) and ψ2 (rA ) are wavepackets of the wave-
function ψ(rA ) in possession of Alice, well localized
around positions r1A and r2A , respectively, and χ1 (rB )
and χ2 (rB ) are wavepackets of the wavefunction χ(rB )
in possession of Bob, well localized around positions r1B
and r2B , respectively. Note that both their particles are
microscopic, such that the combined mass m = mA +mB
is still much less than Planck mass mP , such that the
position horizon of the combined system lies outside its
Schwarzschild radius. Here, mA and mB are the masses
of the particles with Alice and Bob, respectively.
Now, consider that Alice performs a measurement on
her wavefunction ψ(rA ), such that the combined state
during the measurement (in flat spacetime) is:
1
Λ(rA , RA ) = √ ψ1 (rA )ϕ1 (RA ) + ψ2 (rA )ϕ2 (RA ) ,


2
(71)
where ϕ1 (RA ) and ϕ2 (RA ) are wavepackets of the wave-
function ϕ(RA ) of Alice’s measurement device, well lo-
calized around position measurement results R1A and R2A ,
respectively. The positions RA = R1,2A
correspond to Al-
A
ice’s particle being around positions r1,2 . Since the mea-
surement device of Alice is macroscopic, the combined
mass MA of the wavefunction Λ(rA , RA ) of Alice’s par-
ticle and measurement device would usually be greater
than Planck mass mP , such that the position horizon of
the combined system lies inside its Schwarzschild radius.
As discussed in the previous section on wavefunction col-
ment outcomes RA = R1A or RA = R2A as per Born’s rule
in (35), which implies that Alice’s particle is found half
of the times around r1A and half of the times around r2A .
 11

However, since Alice’s particle is entangled with Bob’s where rs = 2Gm

c2 is the Schwarzschild radius. Substitut-
particle as in (70), Bob’s wavefunction χ(rB ) would also ing for proper radius, r = rq′ = γrq = mv
2ℏ
, we get:
collapse to positions rB = r1B or rB = r2B as per Born’s  4
rule (35), depending on the position measurement out- m
come of Alice. That is, if Alice’s particle is found around β2 = . (75)
mP
position r1A , then Bob’s particle would be found around
position r1B , and if Alice’s particle is found around po- Now, we get β = 1 for m = mP , such that the value
sition r2A , then Bob’s particle would be found around in (73) equals 2 with v = c. The value further reduces
position r2B . Thus, it is evident from our math that for m > mP . However,
√ for m ≪ mP , we see that the
the measurement process is nonlocal, as predicted by value approaches 2 2. √In particular, the value equals
standard quantum mechanics, and yet without implying the Tsirelson bound of 2 2 for m = 0, i.e. for particles of
faster-than-light signaling in curved spacetime. zero mass. In other words, the massless particles can be
Notice, however, that we considered maximal entan- maximally Bell-nonlocal, whereas masses above Planck
glement (in flat spacetime) in both (70) and (71) for mass do not exhibit Bell nonlocality.
2
2ℏ
simplicity, although monogamy of entanglement would Clearly, with r = mv , (74) yields v = Gm ℏ . Thus,
imply that Alice’s particle can be maximally entangled v > c for m > mP . This means that the particle velocity
with either Bob’s particle or her measurement device, v must exceed speed of light c in order to exhibit directly
and uncorrelated with the other. In any case, the mea- observable quantum effects, if the particle’s mass is above
surement by Alice not only collapses Alice’s wavefunc- Planck mass. By contrast, v < c for m < mP , as in (17).
tion, but it also collapses Bob’s wavefunction, according Also, (5) is minimum for Planck mass, since v = c for
to Born’s rule, such that Bob will always find his particle m = mP .
to be around rB = r1,2 B
, corresponding to Alice finding
her particle to be around rA = r1,2A
.
VI. QUANTUM PROBABILITY WAVE AS
GRAVITATIONAL WAVE

C. Bell Inequality Notice that the plane wave solution to (26) is:
i

The Clauser-Horne-Shimony-Holt (CHSH) inequality Ψ(x, t) = Ψ0 e ℏ (2|∆p|x−Vg t) , (76)

[19] puts locality limits on the set of four correlations in where Ψ0 = Ψ(0, 0). Taking the first order partial deriva-
Alice and Bob’s experiment as below: tive, with respect to x, of the above yields:
∂ i2 | ∆p | −iℏ ∂
C(â, b̂) + C(â, b̂′ ) + C(â′ , b̂) − C(â′ , b̂′ ) ≤ 2, (72) Ψ(x, t) = Ψ(x, t) ⇒| ∆p |= . (77)
∂x ℏ 2 ∂x
where â and b̂ are the spin observables for Alice and Bob, Substituting the above in (26), we get:
respectively. Alice can choose between two detector set- ∂ ∂
tings labeled a and a′ , corresponding to measurement of iℏ Ψ(x, t) = (2 | ∆p | c)Ψ(x, t) = −iℏc Ψ(x, t).
∂t ∂x
spin along the z or x axis. Bob can choose between two (78)
detector settings labeled b and b′ , corresponding to mea- Multiplying both sides of the above with their conjugate
surement of spin along the z ′ or x′ axis. The quantum transpose, we get:
mechanical
√ upper bound is given by the Tsirelson bound
[20] as 2 2 for a maximally entangled state. Violating ∂2 2 2 ∂
2
ℏ2 | Ψ(x, t) | 2
= ℏ c | Ψ(x, t) |2
the upper bound of 2 is a signature of quantum nonlo- ∂t2 ∂x2 (79)
cality. ⇒□ | Ψ(x, t) |2 = 0,
The relativistic Bell-CHSH observable has a universal
value as follows [21]: which is a probability wave equation, and resembles the
gravitational wave equation □hαβ = 0 for the linearized
Schwarzschild metric in (57) with small Gm/(c2 r). Here,
⟨â ⊗ b̂⟩ + ⟨â ⊗ b̂′ ⟩ + ⟨â′ ⊗ b̂⟩ − ⟨â′ ⊗ b̂′ ⟩ 2
| Ψ(x, t) |2 = Ψ† (x, t)Ψ(x, t), and □ = c2∂∂t2 − ▽2 is the
2  p  (73) d’Alembert operator, which is the wave operator in flat
=p 1 + 1 − β2 ,
2 − β2 ∂2
spacetime, where ▽2 = ∂x 2 , assuming one spatial dimen-
∂2 ∂2 ∂2
sion as above, or in general, ▽2 = ∂x 2 + ∂y 2 + ∂z 2 with
where â and b̂ are now the relativistic spin observables three spatial dimensions as in (57). Note that if hαβ = 0,
for Alice and Bob, respectively, and β = v/c. the probability wave | Ψ(r, t) |2 does not exist, since from
If v is the escape velocity at r, then we have: (8), (66) and (88), we get
′ 2
−2Gm ′3 | Ψ(r , t) |
Z
v2 rs htt (r, t) = hrr (r, t) = dr . (80)
β2 = 2
= , (74) c2 | r − r′ |
c r
 12

Thus, it is the gravitational wave, traveling at the speed lower order terms in x. This means that regardless of
of light, arising from the kinetic energy corresponding what the actual wavefunction of a non-relativistic (free)
to the Newtonian gravitational potential energy Vg = particle is, the probability of finding it at a position x
2dpc in (52), that yields the probability wave in quantum at a time t is well approximated by a separable function
mechanics. It may not be evident why (79) arises from Γ(t)Ω(x), where Γ(t) is polynomial in t of upto first order
(78), but a closer look would clarify that (79) is just (26) of t and Ω(x) is polynomial in x of upto third order of x.
in disguise. With dxdt = c in the first line of (26), we have In general, we have ▽4 | Ψ(r, t) |2 = 0 ⇒| Ψ(r, t) |2 =
dΨ(x, t) = Ψ(x, t) − Ψ0 = −iΨ(x, t), substituting which tΞ(r), where ▽2 = ∂ 2 /∂x2 + ∂ 2 /∂y 2 + ∂ 2 /∂z 2 and Ξ(r)
in the right hand side of (79), we get: is some function of r only. Thus, (80) becomes in the
c2 ∂t2 non-relativistic limit:
∂ 2 | Ψ(x, t) |2 = | Ψ(x, t) |2 , (81)
∂x2
−2Gmt Ξ(r′ )
Z
2 †
where | Ψ(x, t) | is equal to Ψ (x, t)Ψ(x, t), whereas we htt (r, t) = hrr (r, t) = dr′3 , (87)
c2 | r − r′ |
have Ψ(x, t)2 in (26).
Notice that for non-relativistic particles, the energy is p p
2dpv and not 2dpc in (52) from (4). Since the vacuum en- where dr = dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 , r = x2 + y 2 + z 2 , and
ergy corresponds to dp = p/8 as we saw in (44), we would mtΞ(r) = ρ(r, t) is the gravitational mass distribution of
have dp = p/4 in the wave equation for non-relativistic the particle at time t.
particles, where p = mv. Then, we have | ∆p |= p/4 in The probability wave | Ψ(x, t) |2 of a (free) quan-
(78), so that we get: tum particle being a gravitational wave, always travel-
ing at the speed of light, allows for the spreading out
∂
iℏ Ψ(x, t) = (2 | ∆p | v)Ψ(x, t) of the quantum wavefunction or the gravitational mass(-
∂t energy) distribution of the particle. The wavefunction
(82)
pv p2 spreads out in space at the speed of light over time, re-
= Ψ(x, t) = Ψ(x, t),
2 2m gardless of the mass of the particle, although the actual
which is the non-relativistic Schrödinger equation for a particle can travel at a speed less than that of light. In
particle of non-zero mass m. So, the probability wave order to verify this, let ∆x0 , ∆v0 and ∆p0 = ∆γ0 m∆v0
equation (79) becomes: be the position, velocity and momentum uncertainties of
a quantump particle of mass m at time t0 = 0, where
1 2 ∆γ0 = 1/ 1 − ∆v02 /c2 . Also, let ∆x = 2∆x0 and
□ | Ψ(x, t) |2 + ▽ | Ψ(x, t) |2 = 0
γ2 ∆x1 = 3∆x0 be the position uncertainties of the par-
(83)
∂2 ticle at times t > t0 and 2t, respectively, since the wave-
2
⇒ 2 | Ψ(x, t) | = 0. function must spread out at a constant velocity. Then,
∂t
p we have ∆x − ∆x0 = ∆v0 t = ℏt/(2∆γ0 m∆x0 ), since
where γ = 1/ 1 − v 2 /c2 is the Lorentz factor, which we have ∆x0 at least equal to ℏ/(2∆p0 ) from the un-
is nearly unity for v ≪ c. The above implies that the certainty principle. Then, we have ∆p∆x − ∆p∆x0 =
first order partial derivative of the probability function ℏ∆pt/(2∆γ0 m∆x0 ), where ∆p = ∆γm∆v is the mo-
| Ψ(x, t) |2 with respect to time is a function, say Ω(x), mentum uncertainty at time t, and ∆v being p the uncer-
of space only: tainty in velocity at time t, and ∆γ = 1/ 1 − ∆v 2 /c2 .
Using ∆x∆p = ℏ/2 again from the uncertainty prin-
∂ ciple, and using ∆v(2t − t) = ∆vt = ∆x1 − ∆x, we
| Ψ(x, t) |2 = Ω(x) ⇒| Ψ(x, t) |2 = tΩ(x), (84)
∂t get after some algebra: (c2 − ∆v 2 )∆x20 (∆x − ∆x0 )2 =
and so, the rate of change of the probability of finding a (c2 − ∆v02 )∆x2 (∆x1 − ∆x)2 , which yields: 4∆v02 − ∆v 2 =
(free) non-relativistic particle at a position x is constant. 3c2 , upon substituting ∆x = 2∆x0 and ∆x1 = 3∆x0 .
As is known, using p = −iℏ∂/∂x, (82) becomes: Now, since we took ∆x∆p = ∆x0 ∆p0 = ℏ/2, we must
have ∆p = ∆p0 /2, given that we have ∆x = 2∆x0 .
∂ −ℏ ∂ 2 Then, we must have ∆γm∆v = ∆γ0 m∆v0 /2, which
i Ψ(x, t) = Ψ(x, t). (85)
∂t 2m ∂x2 yields: 4/∆v02 − 1/∆v 2 = 3/c2 . Substituting here
Multiplying both sides by their conjugate transpose, and ∆v 2 = 4∆v02 − 3c2 from above, we get after some al-
using (83), we get: gebra: (∆v02 − c2 )2 = 0, which, in turn, implies ∆v0 = c,
and therefore, ∆v = c as well. Thus, the wavefunction of
∂2 2 ℏ2 ∂ 4 a (free) quantum particle must indeed spread out at the
| Ψ(x, t) | = | Ψ(x, t) |2 = 0 speed of light c, regardless of its mass m, since no other
∂t2 4m2 ∂x4 (86)
x3 constant speed of wavefunction spread would keep the
⇒ | Ψ(x, t) |2 = Γ(t), uncertainty product unchanged in the absence of a force,
6
as the position uncertainty of the particle increases. One
where Γ(t) is a function of time only. From (84) and (86), must be careful here that this does not imply that the
we get | Ψ(x, t) |2 = tx3 /6, which can also have additional momentum uncertainty of the particle is always mc.

VII. DISCUSSION
In this paper, we derived Heisenberg’s uncertainty
principle and Schrödinger equation from Newtonian grav-
ity. While existing works consider “additional” uncer-
tainties introduced by gravity [10], or the Schrödinger-
Newton equation that considers an “additional” grav-
itational potential energy term within the quantum
Schrödinger equation [18], we considered that the “orig-
inal” uncertainties in the uncertainty principle, or the
“original” Schrödinger equation itself, arise from grav-
ity. The Schwarzschild diameter allowed us to derive pre-
viously unknown uncertainty bounds in the uncertainty
principle. In particular, we noticed that the upper bound
to the position uncertainty indeed must equal four times
the reduced de Broglie wavelength of the particle (e.g. see
Ref. [22]), since if it is possible for the particle to exhibit
larger position uncertainties, the particle’s energy can go
below the bare minimum of its vacuum energy, as evident
from (44).
We obtained a classical Schrödinger equation in space-
time, that allowed us to obtain Einstein’s field equa-
tion for Schwarzschild metric. We noticed that if the
Schwarzschild metric is approximated as the flat met-
ric, as is usually done for quantum (small) particles, the
tiny spacetime curvature would manifest as large quan-
tum effects. Note that if p = mc, then dr = 2r in (61)
4ℏ ℏ δ(r) =
can range between mc and 2mc from (17). In (51), if we
 2
2ℏ
accordingly substitute r = mc , we get 2Gm
c2 r =
m
mP .
ℏ However, Newtonian gravity in (66) is sourced by T̂00 =
On the other hand, if we substitute r = 4mc , we get
 √ 2
2Gm m
c 2 r = 2 2 mP . Naturally, the curvature is tiny for
m ≪ mP , but r is large. So, if we ignore this tiny term
and assume the metric to be rather the flat metric (50),
we will get these large r’s as position uncertainties.
Notice that in many places, such as above, in the pa-
per, we have taken the momentum p to be equal to mc
for simplicity. In general, we have p = mv, where v is the
velocity of the particle and can be a maximum of c. For
relativistic velocities, we have p = γmv. So, the maxi-
mum radius of the quantum wavefunction of any mass m
is rq = 2ℏ/(γmv), and not rp = 2ℏ/(mc). Here, the ve-
locity v must be a minimum of Gm2 /ℏ to admit quantum
behavior. The maximum radius of the wavefunction is rp
for m = mP (see Fig. 1). For m > mP , the minimum
v is larger than c, so that it is not possible for masses
above mP to exhibit quantum nature. But since c is the
cosmic speed limit, rq cannot be less than rp .
Note that it is because the spacetime curvature is
tiny for m ≪ mP , that we started with Newtonian
gravity, to derive Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle and
Schrödinger equation, assuming flat spacetime. Eq. (51)
resembles the below weak-field metric in the coordinate
system (t, x, y, z), with a Newtonian gravitational poten-
13
tial Φ = − Gmr (see Ref. [2]):
   
2Φ 2Φ
ds = 1 + 2 (cdt) − 1 − 2 (dx2 + dy 2 + dz 2 ).
2 2
c c
(88)
However, the quantum effects arise precisely because of
assuming flat spacetime what in reality is in curved space-
time. It is because of such projecting the tiny curvature
into flat spacetime we usually do for small particles, that
we took as a flat spacetime interval the quantity in (24),
that is otherwise a spatial-only interval in the curved
spacetime metric (51).
The Schwarzschild metric is for Ricci flat spacetime,
but with non-zero Riemannian curvature. This non-
zero but finite Riemannian curvature leads to quantum
mechanics in flat spacetime. Clearly, the form of the
Schwarzschild metric (51) is for small Gm/(c2 r), and
is exactly the same as (88). Thus, (51) is the same
as (88)
h for smalli m and large r. Since the range of
2ℏ
r ∈ 4mcℏ
, γmv we consider is inversely proportional to
mass, considering small mass m, in turn, implies large r
in our case. This is why we could equate relativistic 2dpc
to Newtonian gravitational potential energy in (19).
Note that the Schwarzschild metric is a solution in vac-
uum, assuming a source T00 = c2 ρδ(r), where ρ = Vm
(r)
is the mass density with V (r) = 34 πr3 , and δ(r) is Dirac
delta function:

∞, if r = 0,
(89)
0, if r ̸= 0.
c2 ρ̂ = mc2 Ψ̂† Ψ̂ (see Ref. [18]), where the hats depict
the corresponding quantum operators. Note, however,
ℏ
that since the minimum radius of a particle is 4mc ,
the Schwarzschild solution is not sourced by a point
2
mass, but we instead have T00 = c2 ρ(r) = Vmc (r) with
h i
2ℏ
r ∈ 4mc , γmv . In the limit m → ∞, we indeed get
ℏ
T00 → c2 ρδ(r). Here, we should point out that apart
from the velocity v, if the mass m is also large, the
Schwarzschild metric is not the linearized (51), and so,
the weak-field approximation does not hold [2]. Conse-
quently, if the momentum is large, the effective gravita-
tional potential in the Schwarzschild metric is not just
the Newtonian gravitational potential Φ = − Gm r in (19),
but includes an additional relativistic correction term,
proportional to 1/r3 (see Ref. [2]). This means that the
minimum radius r, arising from (5) with | ∆p |= mc,
ℏ
is 4mc plus an additional relativistic correction term, for
large masses m. This implies that the minimum radius r
ℏ
of any mass m is at least 4mc , regardless of the mass.
As mentioned before, the minimum velocity v to ex-
hibit observable quantum behavior is Gm2 /ℏ. Clearly, v
reducesprapidly for decreasing mass m. For m = Planck
mass ( ℏc/G), v is equal to c, which is of the order of
108 m/s. For the maximum recorded mass of 16.2 mi-
crograms (1.62 × 10−10 kgs) that has been brought into

quantum superposition, this v is about half of c. For the
maximum recorded mass of 70 picograms (7 × 10−14 kgs)
that has been brought into quantum entanglement, this
v is of the order of 10−3 m/s. For a fullerene molecule
of 840 atomic mass units (1.395 × 10−24 kgs) considered
in Ref. [22], v is of the order of 10−24 m/s. This means
that the minimum momentum p = mv is of the order
of 10−48 kg·m/s. Given ∆p/p = ∆v/v = 0.6 considered
here, the minimum ∆p is of the order of 10−49 kg·m/s -
see Fig. 4 in Ref. [22] that this indeed is the case. For
a much smaller mass 9.1 × 10−31 kgs of an electron, v
is of the order of 10−37 m/s, while for a photon of zero
rest mass, v is ideally zero! This is why particles like
electrons and photons exhibit quantum behavior in the
non-relativistic regime too.
Measurement collapses the wavefunction because the
mass of the measurement device exceeds Planck mass,
such that the (interior) metric approaches flat space-
time with position uncertainties reduced to nearly zero.
Moreover, measurement is nonlocal in nature, such that
masses below Planck mass violate Bell-CHSH inequality,
the maximal violation being for massless particles. For
ℏ
r < rp , such as when r = 4mc , we have β > 1 for m > mP
in (74), so that the value in (73) is less than 2, and so, lo-
cality of general relativity is not violated. For m < mP ,
while β < 1 implies nonlocality in flat spacetime (50),
it is still local in curved spacetime (51). Besides, if the
radius of the mass M at the center of a black hole is
ℏ
Υ = 4M c , then the metric for r < Υ is (69) and not (51),
so that the spacetime is flat at r = 0, instead of there
being a singularity.
Notice that it is usually considered that Newtonian
gravity is not Lorentz-invariant, but Galilean-invariant,
as is also the Schrödinger equation. However, the
Schwarzschild metric from general relativity is Lorentz-
invariant. When we consider the small curvature limit of
the Schwarzschild metric, i.e. for small mass m and/or
large radius r, it is still Lorentz-invariant. But when we
project the small curvature to flat spacetime to obtain the
Schrödinger equation, it is no longer Lorentz-invariant in
general, as expected, unless we do what Dirac did for rel-
ativistic velocities. The Schrödinger equation we obtain
yields the vacuum energy as the Hamiltonian 2|∆p|c for
the lower limit of the momentum uncertainty |∆p|, while,
in general, it yields the Dirac equation for relativistic ve-
locities. It was not known why it works to have taken
the Hamiltonian as mc2 + pc in Dirac equation, since
p Schwarzschild metric approaches the Minkowski (flat)
m2 c4 + p2 c2 is not equal to mc2 + pc, but it is evident
from (46) why that works actually. As we saw above, the
same Schrödinger equation we obtained also yields the
non-relativistic Schrödinger equation for non-relativistic
velocities for non-zero mass m with Hamiltonian 2|∆p|v,
when we take |∆p| = p/4, given that the lower bound
|∆p| = p/8 corresponds to the vacuum energy. If we
do not ignore the small curvature of Newtonian gravity,
it must be ideally Lorentz-invariant, otherwise it can-
not arise from general relativity. This is why we claim
to have derived Schrödinger equation from Newtonian
14
gravity, assuming flat spacetime, what is actually rather
curved spacetime. Otherwise, our results can be inter-
preted as that obtained by projecting the small curva-
ture of the Schwarzschild metric for small mass m to flat
spacetime, without calling it the Newtonian weak-field
metric, if the latter is not considered Lorentz-invariant
but just Galilean-invariant. Also, only if Newtonian grav-
ity is treated in flat spacetime, that it appears non-local,
as we say in the beginning, otherwise it is still perfectly
local, if the tiny curvature involved is not ignored. As-
suming the curved metric (51) as the flat metric (50)
clearly introduces length contraction and time dilation,
that manifest as spatial and temporal non-localities, re-
spectively.
VIII. CONCLUSION
In summary, contrary to the widely held belief, that
the universe is fundamentally quantum, and classical
mechanics is an emergent phenomenon, the universe is
rather fundamentally classical, and quantum mechanics
emerges as a special case of classical gravity, when treated
in flat spacetime, for masses below Planck mass. Einstein
always insisted that quantum mechanics cannot be the
most fundamental theory, and should rather emerge as a
consequence of a more fundamental theory. The fact that
time appears to stop at the event horizon of a black hole,
and thus, time does not appear to flow between one end
and the other end of the black hole, and thus, a particle
at one end inside the black hole is simultaneously also
at the other end inside the black hole, as seen from out-
side the event horizon, is not a consequence of quantum
mechanics, but follows naturally from general relativity.
Since the strength of the gravity of a black hole
depends on the mass-energy density, proportional to
mc2 /r3 , the mass-energy of the black hole must be con-
fined inside a maximum radius, that is inversely pro-
portional to the mass of the black hole, and not the
Schwarzschild radius, that is directly proportional to the
mass of the black hole. Otherwise, the gravity of the
black hole would increase with decreasing mass, which
does not make sense. As we derive here, the mass-
energy of the black hole must be confined within a max-
imum radius rq = 2ℏ/(γmv), so that the gravity of
the black hole increases with increasing mass, and the
metric with decreasing mass, as expected. This means
that although time appears to stop at the Schwarzschild
radius, rs = 2Gm/c2 , the maximum radius within which
a constituent particle of the black hole would appear to
be here and there at the same time is rq and not rs . Since
this rq plies outside of rs for masses below Planck mass,
mP = ℏc/G, black holes of masses below Planck mass
cannot even exist. Instead, what comes into being as
observable effects is quantum mechanics itself for masses
below Planck mass. Here, the velocity v must be at least
Gm2 /ℏ for the mass m to admit quantum behaviour (in

flat spacetime) and a maximum of c, the speed of light.
Thus, the universe is general relativistic, and there-
fore, classical and local, in curved spacetime, but the
same universe is quantum and nonlocal (Newtonian),
when treated in special relativistic flat spacetime, for
masses below Planck mass. Quantum mechanics arises
from ignoring the tiny Riemannian curvatures of New-
tonian gravity (which is the weak-field metric in general
relativity, which is the same as the Schwarzschild metric
for small mass m and large radius r), induced by masses
much smaller than Planck mass. Tinier are these (ex-
terior) curvatures that are ignored, the larger are the
observable quantum effects, such as position uncertainty
and non-locality. The quantum wavefunction Ψ deter-
mines the state of the overall energy, and coincides with
the gravitational mass(-energy) distribution, of a parti-
[1] D. J. Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics
(Pearson, India, 2018).
[2] J. B. Hartle, Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein’s Gen-
eral Relativity (Pearson, India, 2014).
[3] S. Mukhi, String theory: a perspective over the last 25
years, Classical and Quantum Gravity 28, 153001 (2011).
[4] C. Rovelli, Loop quantum gravity, Living Reviews in Rel-
ativity 11, 5 (2008).
[5] A. Dragan and A. Ekert, Quantum principle of relativity,
New Journal of Physics 22, 033038 (2020).
[6] G. M. Tino, L. Cacciapuoti, S. Capozziello, G. Lambi-
ase, and F. Sorrentino, Precision gravity tests and the
Einstein equivalence principle, Progress in Particle and
Nuclear Physics 112, 103772 (2020).
[7] J. Hilgevoord, The uncertainty principle for energy and
time, American Journal of Physics 64, 1451 (1996).
[8] P. J. Coles, M. Berta, M. Tomamichel, and S. Wehner,
Entropic uncertainty relations and their applications, Re-
views of Modern Physics 89, 015002 (2017).
[9] M. Tajmar, Derivation of the Planck mass from grav-
itational polarization of the quantum vacuum, Physics
Essays 25, 466 (2012).
[10] V. E. Kuzmichev and V. V. Kuzmichev, Uncertainty
principle in quantum mechanics with Newton’s gravity,
European Physical Journal C 80, 248 (2020).
[11] S. Fu, S. Luo, and Y. Zhang, Gaussian states as minimum
uncertainty states, Physics Letters A 384, 126037 (2020).
[12] M. A. Nielsen and I. L. Chuang, Quantum Computation
and Quantum Information (Cambridge University Press,
India, 2002).
15
cle, and its probability wave |Ψ|2 is a gravitational wave,
evolving deterministically and propagating at the speed
of light, resulting in the spreading out of the gravitational
mass(-energy) distribution (wavefunction) of the particle.
The results here can be extended to other metrics, like
Kerr metric for rotating bodies.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author thanks Bhanu Pratap Das, Debashis
Mukherjee, V. S. Prasannaa, Prasenjit Deb, Anindya
Banerji, Anindita Bera and Rahul Gupta for insightful
discussions.
[13] J. D. Bjorken and S. D. Drell, Relativistic Quantum Me-
chanics (McGraw-Hill, India, 2013).
[14] M.-O. Renou, D. Trillo, M. Weilenmann, T. P. Le, et al.,
Quantum theory based on real numbers can be experi-
mentally falsified, Nature 600, 625 (2021).
[15] C. Whittle, E. D. Hall, S. Dwyer, N. Mavalvala, V. Sud-
hir, et al., Approaching the motional ground state of a
10-kg object, Science 372, 1333 (2021).
[16] S. Kotler, G. A. Peterson, E. Shojaee, F. Lecocq, K. Ci-
cak, et al., Direct observation of deterministic macro-
scopic entanglement, Science 372, 622 (2021).
[17] M. Bild, M. Fadel, Y. Yang, U. V. Lüpke, P. Martin,
et al., Schrödinger cat states of a 16-microgram mechan-
ical oscillator, Science 380, 274 (2023).
[18] M. Bahrami, A. Großardt, S. Donadi, and A. Bassi, The
Schrödinger–Newton equation and its foundations, New
Journal of Physics 16, 115007 (2014).
[19] J. F. Clauser, M. A. Horne, A. Shimony, and R. A. Holt,
Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theo-
ries, Physical Review Letters 23, 880 (1969).
[20] B. S. Cirel’son, Quantum generalizations of Bell’s in-
equality, Letters in Mathematical Physics 4, 93 (1980).
[21] D. Ahn, H. Lee, Y. H. Moon, and S. W. Hwang, Relativis-
tic entanglement and Bell’s inequality, Physical Review
A 67, 012103 (2003).
[22] O. Nairz, M. Arndt, and A. Zeilinger, Experimen-
tal verification of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle
for fullerene molecules, Physical Review A 65, 032109
(2002).