Spontaneous Collapse vs Decoherence

Saverio Pascazio

Michael I Aksman

The physical mechanism underlying quantum wave-function collapse remains a central problem in foundational physics. Objective collapse theories, notably the Penrose-Diósi (DP) model,propose that macroscopic superposition is destroyed by gravitational self-energy (∆EG), predicting that collapse scales strictly with mass.We propose an entirely distinct physical mechanism: Topological Representation Collapse.Within the Deterministic Spectral Manifold (DSM-861) framework, wave-function collapse istriggered not by static gravity, but by dynamic enstrophy strain exceeding a specific topologicalmelting threshold (Em ≈ 695.74 eV). This establishes a falsifiable experimental demarcationline in the mesoscopic regime. We demonstrate that highly strained, rapidly rotating, or topologically complex mesoscopic systems (such as driven nanomechanical rotors or rapidly foldingproteins) will undergo spontaneous decoherence significantly faster than predicted by gravityinduced models, while perfectly rigid macroscopic masses may maintain coherence longer.

Travis Norsen

Alessandro Teta

Michael I Aksman

The physical mechanism underlying quantum wave-function collapse remains a centralproblem in foundational physics. Objective collapse theories, notably the Penrose-Diósi(DP) model, propose that macroscopic superposition is destroyed by gravitational self-energy∆EG, predicting that collapse time τD = ℏ/∆EG scales strictly with mass. Recent experimental bounds from underground generalized acceleration experiments (AURIGA, Helouet al. 2017) have severely constrained the DP parameter space. We propose an entirelydistinct, falsifiable mechanism: Topological Representation Collapse. Within the DSM-861framework, wave-function collapse is triggered not by static gravity but by dynamic enstrophy strain exceeding the topological melting threshold Em = 695.74 eV. This establishes afalsifiable experimental demarcation line in the mesoscopic regime. We demonstrate fourspecific signatures: (1) Topology vs. Mass—decoherence depends on vorticity, not mass; (2)The Rotor Anomaly—a driven nanomechanical rotor will decohere faster than DP predictswhen rotational energy approaches 695.74 eV; (3) Protein Folding Dynamics—intrinsicallydisordered proteins generate enstrophy gradients that trigger a hard decoherence cutoff; (4)Rigid Mass Coherence—a perfectly rigid, non-rotating mass maintains coherence longer thanDP allows. All four predictions are falsifiable with next-generation mesoscopic superpositionexperiments.

Peter J. Lewis