5
$\begingroup$

My main source of information about objective collapse theories is this review article by Bassi et al. There seem to be some problems with the theory that its practitioners readily admit to, such as being incompatible with relativity and not having exact conservation of energy. However, it does seem interesting because it evades Gisin's and Kapustin's no-go theorems for nonlinear quantum mechanics, and it can be used as a test theory for designing and interpreting experimental tests of quantum mechanics, such as TEQ.

Poking around on the internet led me to some blog posts by Lubos Motl in which he claims to have two simple arguments that trivially falsify objective collapse theories. I don't want to provide a link, because these posts use vituperative language, and I don't think that should be encouraged by driving traffic to his blog or increasing his google page rank. I also don't think his arguments seem sufficiently detailed to be compelling. What I'm interested in is whether there are any published papers developing such arguments.

One of the arguments seems to be that the existence of collective states in condensed matter physics falsifies the theory. Bassi's review paper explicitly discusses this on p. 24, but without giving any reference and without indicating that anyone actually considers this a falsification of the theory.

The other argument is that all realist theories, including objective collapse theories, predict the wrong heat capacities for matter. The argument seems to me like a reasonable one if the theory we want to disprove is some kind of 1900 classical theory of the planetary atom, but the leap to a claimed disproof of objective collapse -- or even all realist theories -- seems insufficiently developed to be convincing.

Are there any actual published papers expressing similar opinions that objective collapse is already falsified?

Improve this question
$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
-1
$\begingroup$

There is Glick & Adami's paper, also with a less formal summary there goes the Copenhagen Interpretation. Which after all, also means so to goes objective collapse - and many worlds.

"So your math says that wavefunctions don't collapse. Can you prove it experimentally?"

Basically, G&A outline with information theoretic fashion that wavefunctions don't collapse, and also outlines the experiment they claim will back it up.

EDIT

See also this answer

If we place the Copenhagen interpretation within the broader class of objective collapse interpretations then yes, it is possible to 'falsify' the Copenhagen interpretation.

And if that's not enough, yes, there is indeed experiments, notably TEQ planned.

The TEQ partners will develop new theoretical models and implement a test of the quantum superposition principle on macroscopic objects to establish the ultimate bounds to the validity of the quantum framework, if any.

TEQ participants like Bassi and Barker specifically have testing objective collapse models (e.g. GRW) in mind. In 2020 Bassi et al proved that gravity is not the force behind quantum collapse.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
16
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, but the question is not about standard quantum mechanics, it's about objective collapse theories, as described in the Bassi paper. I've added a link to a shorter description in a Wikipedia article. $\endgroup$
    – asking_anonymously
    Commented Jun 26, 2020 at 14:05
  • $\begingroup$ I get it, however, as wiki says, objective collapse (OC) was formulated as a response to the measurement problem, and also 'many-worlds'. However, there are many issues with OC as you point out. If you solve the measurement problem without messing with 'standard' QM, also without many-worlds, as G&A claim, you also negate the entirety of OC theory (not needed/incorrect). $\endgroup$
    – Mr Anderson
    Commented Jun 27, 2020 at 1:42
  • $\begingroup$ The question seems clear and precise to me. It's about falsification of objective collapse theories. When physicists say "falsification," we mean a contradiction with experiment. This answer doesn't address the question. $\endgroup$
    – asking_anonymously
    Commented Jun 27, 2020 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ I believe it does, but, to make 100% clear, see edit. Cheers. $\endgroup$
    – Mr Anderson
    Commented Jun 27, 2020 at 23:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Who taught you that MWI was favoured by Occam's razor- an MWI fanatic? The pop-sci version of it is indeed beyond silly, as @MrAnderson says- even Everett's original conception, as set out in his PhD thesis, contains fundamentally questionable assumptions. $\endgroup$
    – Professor Sushing
    Commented Aug 7, 2021 at 7:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.