A Recent Article claims that a paper's findings show "collapse" in real-world environments. Is this serious?

[ojitojuntos]

Hello!
I found this article from phys.org, titled "Microscopic mechanism of 'quantum collapse' in real-world environments uncovered for the first time". It took me a while to read it, even more to read the actual paper in Advance Science (which, admittedly, I didn't get), but, I don't see how there is evidence of collapse as a physical mechanism. What do you think?

I also was wondering if you consider that these findings strengthen or weaken any particular interpretation. Thanks in advance! I always enjoy reading the discussions in these forums! :)

 

[WernerQH]

I didn't find much of interest in the phys.org article. Not only quantum theory, but also experiments need interpretation! The "wave function" is a theoretical construct; it cannot be "observed", let alone its "collapse".

 

[PeterDonis]

I don't see how there is evidence of collapse as a physical mechanism.

I don't either. Unfortunately such misdescription of what a paper actually supports is par for the course at phys.org.

I also was wondering if you consider that these findings strengthen or weaken any particular interpretation.

They can't since all interpretations make the same predictions for all experimental results.

That said, if you have further questions about interpretations, they belong in the interpretations subforum, not here.

 

[PeterDonis]

I didn't find much of interest in the phys.org article.

If you consider glaring misstatements to be "of interest", I found one:

"...the "Lindblad master equation," overcoming the limitations of conventional quantum master equations."

As a quick web search will show, the "Lindblad master equation" is a "conventional quantum master equation" and has been for decades. So the theoretical approach being taken in the paper is hardly novel.

 

[PeterDonis]

I don't see how there is evidence of collapse as a physical mechanism.

To amplify a bit on my earlier "I don't either" response: the "physical mechanism" the paper is investigating is decoherence, on a very short time scale compared to what we can generally probe with experiments. Decoherence, while it's an important thing to understand, is not the same thing as "collapse" as an actual physical process.

 

[AlexB23]

As an outsider to particle physics, can I just say that it is kind of scary how sites such as Phys.org can just repost content from other sites without double checking their work? At least it is better than pop sci sites.

Wikipedia states that Phys.org uses a "churnalism" model.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phys.org

 

[pines-demon]

I have never understood who handles phys.org and how news make it there. Some are clearly labelled as copy-edited from a university press but other seems to come out of nowhere.