5

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?

Urb
  • 2,608
asking_anonymously
  • 181

1 Answers1

-1

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.

Mr Anderson
  • 1,399
  • 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. – asking_anonymously Jun 26 '20 at 14:05
  • 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). – Mr Anderson Jun 27 '20 at 01:42
  • 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. – asking_anonymously Jun 27 '20 at 15:27
  • I believe it does, but, to make 100% clear, see edit. Cheers. – Mr Anderson Jun 27 '20 at 23:43
  • Why does many worlds go away as well? I was taught that many worlds is the interpretation preferred by Occam's Razor. – Fomalhaut Dec 06 '20 at 15:24
  • Wiki states ‘collapse theories stand in opposition to many-worlds…’ so, if you can falsify objective collapse, does this mean, by Occam’s Razor, is all that is left is many-worlds? No. Because many-worlds is ‘beyond silly’, and in fact not at all the relative state or the Everett formulation (Everett never advocated many-worlds) despite what you may read on Wiki. See the links I provided for more. – Mr Anderson Dec 08 '20 at 08:13
  • 1
    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. – Marco Ocram Aug 07 '21 at 07:06
  • @MarcoOcram David Wallace's tome, The Emergent Multiverse, makes a pretty convincing argument that MWI is very much in line with Occam's razor. – Paul Razvan Berg Jun 27 '22 at 21:00
  • @PaulRazvanBerg Thank you, but I disagree. And that is the trouble with philosophy, or perhaps the glory of it- it is largely a matter of taste and opinion. – Marco Ocram Jun 27 '22 at 21:45
  • @MarcoOcram Is philosophy was indeed a matter of taste and opinion, we wouldn't be able to conduct any science at all. – Paul Razvan Berg Jun 27 '22 at 21:57
  • Philosophy is about solving problems. I can refer you to Popper's paper The Nature of Philosophical Problems and Their Roots in Science, in which he expounded this argument. – Paul Razvan Berg Jun 27 '22 at 21:58
  • @PaulRazvanBerg many thanks.I appreciate your point- mine was tongue in cheek. On a more serious note, I am skeptical about MWI. I believe it is sensationalised by certain people in order to generate more book sales / page views etc. – Marco Ocram Jun 28 '22 at 06:24
  • @PaulRazvanBerg Here is a quote from the preface to DW's book: 'But quantum theory seems to fail to do this: taken literally as a theory of the world, it seems to make crazy claims: particles are in two places at once; cats are alive and dead at the same time.' That is precisely the sort of misleading statement I object to- QM does not claim that cats are alive and dead at the same time. I therefore have an innate tendency to disrespect a philosopher who would include such a statement in their work. – Marco Ocram Jun 28 '22 at 08:15
  • @MarcoOcram that's not misleading at all. In a single universe worldview, it really is crazy to think that macroscopic objects like cats can be dead and alive the same time. But that's precisely's DW point - to show that the many-worlds picture emerges naturally if you assume the wave function to be real. So ultimately I think that you're not a realist? – Paul Razvan Berg Jun 28 '22 at 08:59
  • Re MWI being sensationalized - I won't deny that, but I don't think that a sociological phenomenon should be construed as an argument in favor or against a scientific theory. And at any rate, David Wallace is actually among the more down-to-earth promoters of MWI. – Paul Razvan Berg Jun 28 '22 at 09:04
  • Let us continue this discussion in chat. – Marco Ocram Jun 28 '22 at 09:14