Abstract
Quantum simulation has shown its irreplaceable role in many fields, where it is difficult for classical computers to do much. On a fourqubit Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) quantum simulator, we experimentally simulate the spinnetwork states by simulating quantum spacetime tetrahedra. The fidelities of our experimentally prepared quantum tetrahedra are all above 95%. We then use the quantum tetradedra prepared by the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance to simulate a spinfoam vertex amplitude, which displays the local dynamics of quantum spacetime. By measuring the geometric properties on the corresponding quantum tetrahedra and simulating their interaction, our experiment serves as a basic module that represents the Feynman diagram vertex in the spinfoam formulation of Loop Quantum Gravity(LQG). This is an initial attempt to study LQG by quantum information processing.
Introduction
As the quantum system size grows linearly, the corresponding Hilbert space grows exponentially. Therefore, it is impossible for classical computers to study large quantum systems, although they have gained plenty of success in the simulation of a variety of physical systems. A raising hope to overcome the issue is by using quantum computers. Since quantum computers process information intrinsically or quantummechanically, they are expected to outperform their classical counterparts exponentially. As first defined by Feynman in 1982^{1}, quantum computers are certain quantum systems that can be easily controlled to imitate the behaviors or properties of other less accessible quantum systems^{2,3}. Here, we demonstrate how nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR), with a high controllable performance on the quantum system^{4}, can be used to develop simulation methods^{5,6} for exhibiting quantum geometries of space and spacetime, based on the analogies between nuclei spin states in NMR samples and spinnetwork states in quantum gravity.
Quantum gravity aims at unifying the Einstein gravity with quantum mechanics, such that our understanding of gravity can be extended to the Planck scale \(1.22{\,}\times 1{0}^{19}\) GeV^{7,8}. At the Planck level, Einstein gravity and the continuum of spacetime break down and are replaced by a quantum spacetime. Many current approaches toward quantum spacetimes are rooted in spin networks—an important, nonperturbative framework of quantum gravity. Spin networks were proposed by Penrose, as motivated by the twistor theory^{9}, and later have been widely applied to loop quantum gravity (LQG)^{10}. In LQG, spin networks are quantum states representing fundamentally discrete quantum geometries of space at the Planck scale^{11}, serving as the boundary data of certain \(3+1\) dimensional quantum spacetime. A spin network is represented by a graph, whose (oriented) links and nodes are colored by spin halves. Any node with edges corresponds to a geometry. For example, a graph consists of a number of fourvalent (or generally nvalent) nodes, each of which corresponds to a quantum tetrahedron geometry^{12}.
A \(3+1\) dimensional quantum spacetime whose boundary is a spin network is a spinfoam, a “network” consisting of a number of threedimensional world sheets (surfaces) and their intersections, where the world sheets are colored by spin halves. Just like the time evolution of a classical space that builds up a classical spacetime, the time evolution of a spin network forms a quantum spacetime^{13,14}. Examples of quantum spacetimes are shown in Fig. 1a, b. Each vertex where the world sheets meet leads to a quantum transition that changes the spin network and represents local dynamics (interactions) of quantum geometry. Similar to Feynman diagrams, quantum spacetimes encode the transition amplitudes—spinfoam amplitudes—between the initial and final spin networks^{15,16,17}. A spinfoam amplitude of a quantum spacetime is determined by the vertex amplitudes locally encoded in the intersection vertices in the quantum spacetime (Fig. 1c, d). Thus, quantum spacetimes and spinfoam amplitudes provide a consistent and promising approach to quantum gravity.
In this paper, by using \(4\)qubit quantum registers in the NMR system, \(SU(2)\) invarianttensor states representing the quantum tetrahedra are created with over \(95 \%\) fidelity, and we subsequently measure their geometrical properties–dihedral angles, which determine the shapes of tetrahedra. This simulation with NMR is featured by the capability of controlling individual qubits with high precision. With these quantum tetrahedra, we simulate a spin\(1/2\) spinfoam vertex amplitude in Ooguri’s model. Quantum tetrahedra and vertex amplitudes serve as building blocks of LQG. Our work opens up a new window of putting LQG in experiments.
Results
Quantum tetrahedron
Given a spin network defined on an oriented graph \(\Gamma\), each link \(l\) is oriented and carries a halfinteger \({j}_{l}\), which labels a \(2{j}_{l}+1\) dimensional \(SU(2)\) irreducible representation space \({{\mathcal{H}}}_{{j}_{l}}\). Each node \(n\) carries a tensor \({i}_{n}\rangle\) in the tensor representation \({\otimes }_{l}{{\mathcal{H}}}_{{j}_{l}}\), that is invariant under \(SU(2)\) action. The state \({i}_{n}\rangle\) is thus referred to as an invariant tensor. A spinnetwork state is written as a triple \(\Gamma ,{j}_{l},{i}_{n}\rangle\), defined by a tensor product of the invariant tensors \({i}_{n}\rangle\) at all nodes, \(\Gamma ,{j}_{l},{i}_{n}\rangle := {\otimes }_{n}{i}_{n}\rangle\), where spin labels of \({i}_{n}\rangle\) are implicit. All spin networks with arbitrary \(\Gamma ,{j}_{l},{i}_{n}\) define an orthonormal basis in the Hilbert space of LQG. Thus, simulating a spin network with \(m\) nodes, \({\otimes }_{n=1}^{m}{i}_{n}\rangle\), only amounts to producing \(m\) invariant tensors \({i}_{1}\rangle ,\cdots \ ,{i}_{m}\rangle\) in the experiment. It then suffices to simulate \({i}_{n}\rangle\).
The rank \(N\) of \({i}_{n}\rangle\) coincides with the valence of the node \(n\). The \(SU(2)\) invariance of a rank\(N\)\({i}_{n}\rangle\) implies
Here, \({\hat{{\bf{J}}}}^{(k)}=({\hat{J}}_{x}^{(k)},{\hat{J}}_{y}^{(k)},{\hat{J}}_{z}^{(k)})\) are the angular momentum operators on the Hilbert space \({{\mathcal{H}}}_{{j}_{k}}\). These operators satisfy \([{\hat{{\bf{J}}}}_{a}^{(m)},{\hat{{\bf{J}}}}_{b}^{(k)}]=i{\delta }^{mk}{\epsilon }_{abc}{\hat{{\bf{J}}}}_{c}^{(k)}\), where \({\epsilon }_{abc}\) is the Levi–Civita symbol. Eq. (1) is the internal gauge invariance of LQG, as the remanent from restricting the local Lorentz symmetry in a spatial slice^{10,18}. As Euclidean tetrahedra with \(N=4\) are the fundamental building blocks of arbitrary curved 3d discrete geometries, in this paper, we mainly focus on \(N=4\). In a \(3\)d Euclidean space, a tetrahedron gives \(4\) oriented areas \({{\bf{E}}}^{(k=1,\cdots ,4)}=({E}_{x}^{(k)},{E}_{y}^{(k)},{E}_{z}^{(k)})\), where \({{\bf{E}}}^{(k)}\) is the area of the \(k\)th face, and \({{\bf{E}}}^{(k)}/{{\bf{E}}}^{(k)}\) is the unit vector normal to the face. Four tetrahedron faces form a closed surface, namely
Conversely, the data \({{\bf{E}}}^{(k=1,\cdots ,4)}\) subject to Eq. (2) uniquely determine the (Euclidean) tetrahedron geometry^{19}. The comparison of Eqs. (1) and (2) indicates that \({\hat{{\bf{J}}}}^{(k)}\) is the quantum version of \({\hat{{\bf{E}}}}^{(k)}\). In fact in LQG, area operators \({{\bf{E}}}^{k}\) are related to \({\hat{{\bf{J}}}}^{(k)}\) by \({\hat{{\bf{E}}}}^{(k)}=8\pi {\ell }_{P}^{2}{\hat{{\bf{J}}}}^{(k)}\), where \({\ell }_{P}={G}_{N}\hslash\) is the Planck length, and \({G}_{N}\) the Newton’s constant. Hence, Eqs. (1) and (2) lead to a geometrical interpretation for the invariant tensor, and further for the spin network^{20}. More detailed physical account for this quantization is given in Supplementary Note 1.
Quantum spacetime atom
In a \(3+1\) dimensional dynamical quantum spacetime shown in Fig. 1b, we consider an atom of quantum spacetimes, namely a \(3\)sphere enclosing a portion of the quantum spacetime surrounding a vertex. The boundary of the enclosed quantum spacetime is precisely a spin network (see Fig. 1c). Large quantum spacetimes with many vertices can be obtained by gluing the atoms.
A vertex amplitude associated with a quantum spacetime atom, which determines the spinfoam amplitude, is an evaluation of the spin network \({\otimes }_{n=1}^{5}{i}_{n}\rangle\), leading to a transition from the initial to the final spin networks. The evaluation itself is a function of invariant tensors. The spin network \({\otimes }_{n=1}^{5}{i}_{n}\rangle\) in Fig. 1c shows the (quantum) gluing of \(5\) tetrahedra to form a closed \({S}^{3}\), where each invariant tensor associates with a node in the spin network (blue in Fig. 1c). Consider the following evaluation of \({\otimes }_{n=1}^{5}{i}_{n}\rangle\) by picking up the \(2\)qubit maximally entangled state \({\epsilon }_{l}\rangle =(01\rangle 10\rangle )/\sqrt{2}\) for each link \(l\)
The inner product above takes place at the end points of each \(l\), between a qubit in \({\epsilon }_{l}\rangle\) and the other in \({i}_{n}\rangle\). Each link in the spin network corresponds to gluing a pair of faces belonging to two different quantum tetrahedra. Gluing faces requires to match in their quantum area, but does not require to match in shape due to quantum fluctuations.
The resulting \(A({i}_{1},\cdots \ ,{i}_{5})\) is a vertex amplitude of quantum spacetime in Ooguri’s model^{15}, where the spins are all \(1/2\). Ooguri’s model defines a topological invariant of fourmanifolds, and the vertex amplitudes in Ooguri’s model relate to the classical action of gravity when (1) the spins are large and (2) spins and invariant tensors \({i}_{n}\rangle\) satisfy Reggelike boundary conditions^{21}. \(A({i}_{1},\cdots \ ,{i}_{5})\) is the transition amplitude from \(m\) to \(5m\) quantum tetrahedra \((m {\,}< {\,}5)\), or covariantly, the interaction amplitude of \(5\) quantum tetrahedra. The amplitude describes the local dynamics of LQG in the \(3+1\) dimensional quantum spacetime enclosed by the \({S}^{3}\).
Experimental design
LQG identifies quantum tetrahedron geometries with the quantum angular momenta subject to Eq. (1). This identification enables us to simulate quantum geometries with quantum registers. We focus on the situation with all spins \(j=1/2\) (\({{\mathcal{H}}}_{j=1/2}\simeq {{\mathbb{C}}}^{2}\)) and simulate quantum tetrahedra(\(N=4\)) with fourqubit invarianttensor states (details are given in Supplementary Note 2).
The quantum tetrahedra can be reconstructed through various geometrical properties defined by the operators on \({\rm{Inv}}_{\rm{SU}(2)}[{{\mathcal{H}}}_{j=1/2}^{\otimes 4}]\). For example, with the quantization of area operators \({\hat{{\bf{E}}}}^{(k)}\), the quantum area of the \(k\)th face is diagonalized^{11,22} as
The expectation value of an area operator in an invariant tensor \(i\rangle\) is \(\langle i{\widehat{{\bf{Ar}}}}_{k}i\rangle =8\pi {\ell }_{P}^{2}\sqrt{3/4}\). In addition, the angle \({\theta }_{km}\) between the \(k\)th and \(m\)th face normals is quantized accordingly^{23} as
The dihedral angle \({\phi }_{km}\) between the \(k\)th and \(m\)th faces relates to \({\theta }_{km}\) by \(\cos {\phi }_{km}={\hskip 1.3pt}\cos {\theta }_{km}\). Because of Eq. (1), for a certain \(k\), there are only two independent expectation values of \({\widehat{\cos \theta }}_{km}\), say, \(\langle i{\widehat{\cos \theta }}_{12}i\rangle\) and \(\langle i{\widehat{\cos \theta }}_{13}i\rangle\). For the arbitrary tetrahedron \(i\rangle\), its geometry can be uniquely determined by the expectation values of the four areas and two dihedral angles (Supplementary Note 3).
Since \({\rm{Inv}}_{\rm{SU}(2)}[{{\mathcal{H}}}_{j=1/2}^{\otimes 4}]\) is twodimensional, this invarianttensor space can be presented on a Bloch sphere. With the spherical coordinate system, any point \((\theta ,\phi )\) on the surface can uniquely determine a quantum tetrahedron. In our experiments, we intend to simulate ten quantum tetrahedra by preparing the corresponding invarianttensor states. These states are labeled by \(10\) colored points on the Bloch sphere, as shown in Fig. 2, whose spherical coordinates can be found in Supplementary Note 4.
Our experiments were conducted on a 700MHz DRX Bruker spectrometer at room temperature. The crotonic acid molecule with four \({}^{13}C\) nuclei, works as our fourqubit quantum system, whose Hamiltonian is
where \({\nu }_{j}\) is the chemical shift of the jth spin and \({J}_{jk}\) is the spin–spin interaction (\(J\)coupling) strength between spins j and k. To achieve a universal control on this system, a transverse magnetic field is applied at a reference frequency of \({}^{13}C\) nuclei \({\omega }_{rf}\). By tuning parameters such as amplitude \({\omega }_{1}\), phase \(\phi\), and duration, the control Hamiltonian of each time step is
All the experiments to prepare the quantum tetrahedra and simulate its local dynamics are divided into the following three parts:
State preparation: First, the entire system was initialized to a pseudopure state. With the spatial average method, the fidelity obtained is over \(99 \%\) (Supplementary Note 4). Then, the system was driven into the ten invarianttensor states from \(i={A}_{0},{A}_{1}\) to \({E}_{0},{E}_{1}\) which are shown in Fig. 2. Those transformations were implemented by ten \(20\) msshaped pulses. Those shaped pulses were all optimized by the gradient ascent pulse engineering (GRAPE) algorithm with the simulated fidelity over 99.7%^{24}. As a result, the ten experimental states obtained were denoted as \({\rho }_{i}^{{\rm{tetra}}}\), where \(i={A}_{0},{A}_{1}\ldots {E}_{0},{E}_{1}\).
Geometry measurement: For an arbitrary density matrix represented with Pauli terms, the identity part generates no signal in the NMR system. Hence, the area operators \({\hat{{\bf{E}}}}^{(k)}\) defined in Eq. (4) are unmeasurable in the experiment. Thus, in our experiment, we stress on \({\widehat{\cos \theta }}_{km}\) defined in Eq. (5), where \(k\ne m\) and \(k,m=1\ldots 4\). For a qubit system, these \({\widehat{\cos \theta }}_{km}\) can be represented in terms of Pauli matrices: \({\widehat{\cos \theta }}_{km}=({\sigma }_{x}^{k}{\sigma }_{x}^{m}+{\sigma }_{y}^{k}{\sigma }_{y}^{m}+{\sigma }_{z}^{k}{\sigma }_{z}^{m})/6\). The observables such as \({\rm{Tr}}[{\sigma }_{x}^{k}{\sigma }_{x}^{m}{\rho }_{i}^{tetra}](i={A}_{0},{A}_{1}\ldots {E}_{0},{E}_{1})\) can be measured by adding assistant pulses before the measurement, which function as singlequbit rotations and were optimized by a \(1\) ms GRAPE pulse with a simulated fidelity over 99.7%.
We present the measured geometry properties with a threedimensional histogram in Fig. 3, whose vertical axis represents the cosine value of angles between the face normals. In the figure, the maximum difference between experiment (colored) and theory (transparent) is within \(0.08\). The uncertainty came from the NMR spectrumfitting process when using the Lorentz shape to guarantee the confidence level over 95%. With the consideration of error bars, the coincidence between experiments and theoretical simulation (Fig. 3) implies that the invarianttensor states prepared in our experiment match the building blocks—quantum tetrahedra.
Amplitude simulation: As the spinnetwork states serve as the boundary data of 3+1dimensional quantum spacetime, the vertex amplitude defined in Eq. (3) determines the spinfoam amplitude and describes the local dynamics of QG in the 4d quantum spacetime, displaying the properties of these boundary data.
To obtain such vertex amplitudes, one needs to calculate the inner products between five different quantum tetrahedron states. This could be done in a 20qubit quantum computer by establishing twoqubit maximally entangled state \({\epsilon }_{l}\rangle =(01\rangle 10\rangle )/\sqrt{2}\) between arbitrary two tetrahedra \({i}_{n}\rangle\), as the link \(l\) shown in Fig. 1. Nevertheless, such a quantum computer is beyond the cuttingedge technology nowadays. Alternatively, a full tomography follows our state preparation to obtain the information of quantum tetrahedron states. The fidelities between the experimentally prepared quantum tetrahedron states and the theoretical ones were also calculated. They are all above \(95 \%\) (Supplementary Note 4).
By using the prepared quantum tetrahedra, we simulated the vertex amplitude in Eq. (3) by restricting \({i}_{n}\rangle (n=1\ldots 4)\) as the regular tetrahedra and substituted the \({i}_{5}\rangle\) with the experimental \({\rho }_{i}^{{\rm{tetra}}}\). Mixed states are inevitably introduced to the experiment because of experimental errors. To calculate the inner products in the vertex amplitude formula in Eq. (3), we purified the measured density matrices, with the method of maximal likelihood. The comparison between the experiment and the numeric simulation is listed in Table 1. The vertex amplitude \(A({i}_{1},\ldots ,{i}_{5})\) is the transition amplitude of the evolution from \(m\) to \(5m\) quantum tetrahedra \((m\,<\,5)\) or the interaction among all five tetrahedra. As seen in Fig. 4 and Table 1, the maximum and minimum of the magnitude of the amplitude occur, respectively when \({\rho }_{i}^{{\rm{tetra}}}\) describes the two regulartetrahedron states \({C}_{1}\) and \({C}_{0}\). Table 1 also records the precise values of the amplitudes.
As a result, our experiment demonstrates that the saddle points of the amplitude indeed occur where the five interacting tetrahedra have a sensible geometric meaning, namely they glue to form a foursimplex. Such a geometrical meaning is manifest in the large\(J\) or classical limit. To present the consequences intuitively, we also calculated the vertex amplitude based on the condition above, by varying the parameters \(\theta\) and \(\phi\) in \({i}_{5}\rangle\). Figure 4a, b depicts the value of the simulated amplitude and phase, respectively. When \(\theta =\pi /2\) and \(\phi =\pi /2({C}_{1})\) or \(\phi =3\pi /2({C}_{0})\), the invarianttensor states correspond to the regular tetrahedrons.
Discussion
Quantum fluctuations arise because the operators \({\widehat{\cos \theta }}_{km}\) do not commute, where \((k,m)=(1,2),(1,3),(1,4)\). The fluctuations \({\Delta }_{km}\) are defined as \({({\widehat{\cos \theta }}_{km}\langle i{\widehat{\cos \theta }}_{km}i\rangle )}^{2}\), and we add three \({\Delta }_{km}\) to obtain the total quantum fluctuation (Supplementary Note 5)
The experimentally prepared states are all in the minimal fluctuation of area because the second term in Eq. (8) equals \(0\) (the experimental values are listed in Supplementary Note 4). These tetrahedra are of Planck size (\({\bf{Ar}} \sim {\ell }_{P}^{2}\)) and typically appear in quantum spacetime near the big bang or a blackhole singularity^{25}. The quantum fluctuations are quite large because the quantum tetrahedra simulated correspond to \(j=1/2\). For \(j\gg 1\), we would see tetrahedron geometries with small quantum fluctuations^{26}.
By using a fourqubit quantum register in the NMR system, we created ten invarianttensor states representing ten quantum tetrahedra with a fidelity over \(95 \%\), and subsequently measured their dihedral angles. By considering the spectrumfitting errors, the geometrical identification implies our success in simulating quantum tetrahedra. We then simulated spin\(1/2\) vertex amplitudes \(A({i}_{1},\ldots ,{i}_{5})\) (in Ooguri’s model). As the vertex amplitudes determine the spinfoam amplitudes and display the local dynamics, the results imply the interaction amplitude of five gluing quantum tetrahedra or display the transition from \(m\) to \((5m)\) quantum tetrahedra. As the first step toward exploring spinnetwork states and spinfoam amplitudes by using a quantum simulator, our work provides valid experimental demonstrations toward studying LQG.
Data availability
The data sets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
 1.
Feynman, R. P. Simulating physics with computers. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 21, 467–488 (1982).
 2.
Lloyd, S. Universal quantum simulators. Science 273, 1073–1078 (1996).
 3.
Georgescu, I. M., Ashhab, S. & Nori, F. Quantum simulation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 153–185 (2014).
 4.
Vandersypen, L. M. & Chuang, I. L. Nmr techniques for quantum control and computation. Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1037 (2005).
 5.
Du, J. et al. Nmr implementation of a molecular hydrogen quantum simulation with adiabatic state preparation. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 030502 (2010).
 6.
Feng, G.R., Lu, Y., Hao, L., Zhang, F.H. & Long, G.L. Experimental simulation of quantum tunneling in small systems. Sci. Rep. 3, 2232 (2013).
 7.
Kiefer, C. Quantum Gravity. International Series of Monographs on Physics. (OUP Oxford, 2012).
 8.
Rovelli, C. Quantum Gravity. (Cambridge University Press, 2004).
 9.
Penrose, R. in Angular momentum: an approach to combinatorial spacetime (ed. Bastin, T.) Quantum Theory and Beyond (Cambridge University Press, 1971).
 10.
Han, M., Huang, W. & Ma, Y. Fundamental structure of loop quantum gravity. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D16, 1397–1474 (2007).
 11.
Rovelli, C. & Smolin, L. Discreteness of area and volume in quantum gravity. Nucl. Phys. B 442, 593–619 (1995).
 12.
Barbieri, A. & Smolin, L. Quantum tetrahedra and simplicial spin networks. Nucl. Phys. B518, 714–728 (1998).
 13.
Rovelli, C. & Vidotto, F. Covariant Loop Quantum Gravity: An Elementary Introduction to Quantum Gravity and Spinfoam Theory. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. (Cambridge University Press, 2014).
 14.
Perez, A. The spin foam approach to quantum gravity. Living Rev. Rel. 16, 3 (2013).
 15.
Ooguri, H. Topological lattice models in fourdimensions. Mod. Phys. Lett. A7, 2799–2810 (1992).
 16.
Barrett, J. W. & Crane, L. Relativistic spin networks and quantum gravity. J. Math. Phys. 39, 3296–3302 (1998).
 17.
Engle, J., Livine, E., Pereira, R. & Rovelli, C. LQG vertex with finite Immirzi parameter. Nucl. Phys. B799, 136–149 (2008).
 18.
Thiemann, T. Modern Canonical Quantum General Relativity. (Cambridge University Press, 2007).
 19.
Minkowski, H. Ausgewählte Arbeiten zur Zahlentheorie und zur Geometrie, vol 12 of of TeubnerArchiv zur Mathematik http://www.springerlink.com/index/10.1007/9783709195369. (Springer, Vienna, 1989).
 20.
Freidel, L. & Livine, E. R. The fine structure of su (2) intertwiners from u (n) representations. J. Math. Phys. 51, 082502 (2010).
 21.
Barrett, J. W., Fairbairn, W. J. & Hellmann, F. Quantum gravity asymptotics from the SU(2) 15j symbol. Int. J. Mod. Phys. A25, 2897–2916 (2010).
 22.
Ashtekar, A. & Lewandowski, J. Quantum theory of geometry. 1: area operators. Class. Quant. Grav. 14, A55–A82 (1997).
 23.
Rovelli, C. & Speziale, S. A semiclassical tetrahedron. Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 5861–5870 (2006).
 24.
Khaneja, N., Reiss, T., Kehlet, C., SchulteHerbrüggen, T. & Glaser, S. J. Optimal control of coupled spin dynamics: design of nmr pulse sequences by gradient ascent algorithms. J. Magn. Reson. 172, 296–305 (2005).
 25.
Han, M. & Zhang, M. Spinfoams near a classical curvature singularity. Phys. Rev. D94, 104075 (2016).
 26.
Livine, E. R. & Speziale, S. A New spinfoam vertex for quantum gravity. Phys. Rev. D76, 084028 (2007).
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by CIFAR, NSERC, and Industry of Canada. K.L. and G.L. acknowledge the National Natural Science Foundation of China under grant Nos. 11175094 and 91221205 and National Key Research and Development Program of China (2017YFA0303700). Y.L. acknowledges support from the Chinese Ministry of Education under grant No. 20173080024. M.H. acknowledges support from the US National Science Foundation through grant PHY1602867, PHY1912278, and the startup grant at Florida Atlantic University, USA. Y.W. thanks the hospitality of IQC and PI during his visit, where this work was partially conducted. Y.W. is also supported by the Shanghai Pujiang Program grant No. 17PJ1400700 and the NSF grant No. 11875109. D.L. is supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant Nos. 11605005, 11875159, and U1801661), Science, Technology, and Innovation Commission of Shenzhen Municipality (grant Nos. ZDSYS20170303165926217, JCYJ20170412152620376, and JCYJ20180302174036418), and Guangdong Innovative and Entrepreneurial Research Team Program (grant No. 2016ZT06D348).
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
D.L., Y.W., M.H. and R.L. conceived the experiments. K.L., D.L. and S.L. performed the experiment and analyzed the data. Y.L., J.Z. and M.H. provided theoretical support. G.L., D.R., B.Z., and R.L. supervised the project. D.L., K.L., Y.W., Y.L. and M.H. wrote the paper with feedback from all authors. The authors declare that they have no competing financial interests. Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to Y.W. (ydwan@fudan.edu.cn), D.L. (ludw@sustech.edu.cn), or B.Z. (zengb@uoguelph.ca). K.L., Y.L. and M.H. contributed equally to this work.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Li, K., Li, Y., Han, M. et al. Quantum spacetime on a quantum simulator. Commun Phys 2, 122 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s4200501902185
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Further reading

Witnesses of nonclassicality for simulated hybrid quantum systems
Journal of Physics Communications (2020)

Controllable Switching between Superradiant and Subradiant States in a 10qubit Superconducting Circuit
Physical Review Letters (2020)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.