Undergrad Trouble for physical collapse models?

Click For Summary
Recent experiments are challenging physical-collapse theories, which have historically attempted to explain quantum phenomena. These theories are increasingly viewed as untenable due to precise experimental results that contradict their predictions. The discussion highlights that while proponents can adjust parameters to keep the theories alive, the fundamental issues remain unresolved. The notion that measuring a collapse model could lead to its own collapse is raised, emphasizing the paradoxical nature of these theories. Overall, the consensus suggests that physical-collapse models face significant obstacles moving forward.
atyy
Science Advisor
Messages
15,170
Reaction score
3,379
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physics-experiments-spell-doom-for-quantum-collapse-theory-20221020/
Experiments Spell Doom for Decades-Old Explanation of Quantum Weirdness
Physical-collapse theories have long offered a natural solution to the central mystery of the quantum world. But a series of increasingly precise experiments are making them untenable.
Philip Ball

On Twitter, he writes "Personally I think recent experiments have indeed pretty much spelt doom for physical collapse models. They were always a long shot, and I applaud that they are testable - but the writing is on the wall."
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes ohwilleke, vanhees71, DennisN and 3 others
Physics news on Phys.org
It's like supersymmetry, you can always adjust some parameters to bigger/smaller values, or construct a more complicated model, so that the general idea is not ruled out by the last experiments.
 
Does this mean that when you measure a collapse model, the model itself collapses?
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Likes Heidi, atyy, Demystifier and 3 others
PeroK said:
Does this mean that when you measure a collapse model, the model itself collapses?
I read the same article and came looking!
 
I thought I would start a thread, as as spinoff to perhaps highlight and contemplate of that the ideas in the paper mitchell porter pointed to means. I just started to sniff it.. and wrote in the other thread "How to fix Relativistic QM so it's consistent?" Indeed fixing relativity and how to understnad equivalences, seems to be the central issue of the below paper. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Huge paper, I havent ready it through fully but skimmed...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 157 ·
6
Replies
157
Views
5K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
135
Views
11K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 71 ·
3
Replies
71
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K