Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Empirically Probing the Philosophically Unsatisfactory Region of GRW

Charles T. Sebens

Published Jan 1, 2015• 0 citations
OpenAlex

Abstract

GRW theory oers precise laws for the collapse of the wave function. These collapses are characterized by two new constants, and . Recent work has put experimental upper bounds on the collapse rate, . Lower bounds on have been more controversial since GRW begins to take on a many-worlds character for small values of . Here I examine GRW in this odd region of parameter space where collapse events act as natural disasters that destroy branches of the wave function along with their occupants. Our continued survival provides evidence that we don’t live in a universe like that. I oer a quantitative analysis of how such evidence can be used to assess versions of GRW with small collapse rates in an eort to move towards more principled and experimentally-informed lower bounds for .

Related papers

Parameter diagrams of the GRW and CSL theories of wavefunction collapse

William Feldmann, Roderich Tumulka

It has been hypothesized that the time evolution of wavefunctions might include collapses, rather than being governed by the Schrödinger equation. The leading models of such an evolution, Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) and continuous spontaneous localization (CSL), have two parameters (or new constants of nature): the collapse width σ and the collapse rate λ. We draw a diagram of the σλ-plane showing the region that is empirically refuted and the region that is philosophically unsatisfactory.

arXiv:1109.6579•Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical•Jan 26, 2012•93 citations

Life and death in the tails of the GRW wave function

Wallace, David

It is often assumed that the only effect of the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (`GRW') dynamical collapse mechanism on the `tails' of the wavefunction (that is, the components of superpositions on which the collapse is \emph{not} centred) is to reduce their weight. In consequence the tails are often thought to behave exactly as do the various branches in the Everett interpretation except for their much lower weight. These assumptions are demonstrably inaccurate: the collapse mechanism has substantial and detectable effects within the tails. The relevance of this misconception for the dynamical-collapse theories is debatable, though.

arXiv:1407.4746•Jul 17, 2014•20 citations

Epistemology of Wave Function Collapse in Quantum Physics

Charles Wesley Cowan, Roderich Tumulka

Among several possibilities for what reality could be like in view of the empirical facts of quantum mechanics, one is provided by theories of spontaneous wave function collapse, the best known of which is the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) theory. We show mathematically that in GRW theory (and similar theories) there are limitations to knowledge, that is, inhabitants of a GRW universe cannot find out all the facts true of their universe. As a specific example, they cannot accurately measure the number of collapses that a given physical system undergoes during a given time interval; in fact, they cannot reliably measure whether one or zero collapses occur. Put differently, in a GRW universe certain meaningful, factual questions are empirically undecidable. We discuss several types of limitations to knowledge and compare them with those in other (no-collapse) versions of quantum mechanics, such as Bohmian mechanics. Most of our results also apply to observer-induced collapses as in orthodox quantum mechanics (as opposed to the spontaneous collapses of GRW theory). 1 Introduction 1.1 Known examples of limitations to knowledge 1.2 Remarks2 Brief Review of GRW Theories 2.1 The GRW process 2.2 GRWm 2.3 GRWf3 First Examples of Limitations to Knowledge in GRW Theories4 Measurements of Flashes in GRWf, or of Collapses in GRWm 4.1 An example in which ψ is known 4.2 Other choices of ψ 4.3 Experiments beginning before t 2 4.4 If ψ is random 4.5 Optimal way of distinguishing two density matrices 4.6 If ψ is unknown5 Measurements of m(x) in GRWmAppendix

arXiv:1307.0827•The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science•Dec 23, 2014•24 citations

Life and Death in the Tails of the Wave Function

David Wallace

It is often assumed that the only effect of the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (`GRW') dynamical collapse mechanism on the `tails' of the wavefunction (that is, the components of superpositions on which the collapse is \emph{not} centred) is to reduce their weight. In consequence it seems to be generally accepted that the tails behave exactly as do the various branches in the Everett interpretation except for their much lower weight. These assumptions are demonstrably inaccurate: the collapse mechanism has substantial and detectable effects within the tails. The relevance of this misconception for the dynamical-collapse theories is debatable, though.

•Jul 17, 2014•8 citations

Difficulties with Collapse Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics

Casey Blood

Quantum mechanics gives many versions of reality but we perceive only one. One potential explanation for this, the one considered here, is that the wave function collapses down to just one version. The experimental situation is briefly reviewed, with no evidence found for collapse. The theoretical position is also reviewed and found wanting. Collapse-by-observation schemes are logically untenable. A mathematical theory of collapse must be nonlinear, a significant departure from current quantum theory. In addition, the primary candidate theory, the GRW-Pearle model, requires instantaneous, non-local transmission of information. It also requires transmission of information across versions of reality, which is forbidden in current quantum mechanics. And there is no apparent physical quantity, such as particle number, that can provide the mechanism for collapse in all cases. Further, these aspects, which are in disagreement with current theory, seem to be necessary for any mathematical theory of collapse. The conclusion is that the outlook for mathematical collapse schemes is not encouraging.

arXiv:0808.3699•NeuroQuantology•Feb 28, 2009•7 citations

Precision tests of models of spontaneous wave function collapse

Angelo Bassi

Quantum mechanics is grounded on the superposition principle, which is the source both of its tremendous success and technological power, as well as of the problems in understanding it. The reason why superpositions do not propagate from the microscopic to the macroscopic world are subject to debate. Spontaneous wave function collapse models have been formulated to take into account a progressive breakdown of quantum superpositions when systems are large enough; they do so by modifying the Schrödinger dynamics, and therefore they are empirically testable. Deviations are tiny, and require precision measurements. I will review collapse models, and present the most recent experimental tests.

Optical and Quantum Sensing and Precision Metrology II•Mar 8, 2023•0 citations
GRW theory oers precise laws for the collapse of the wave function. These collapses are characterized by two new constants, and . Recent work has put experimental upper bounds on the collapse rate, . Lower bounds on have been more controversial since GRW begins to take on a many-worlds character for small values of . Here I examine GRW in this odd region of parameter space where collapse events act as natural disasters that destroy branches of the wave function along with their occupants. Our continued survival provides evidence that we don’t live in a universe like that. I oer a quantitative analysis of how such evidence can be used to assess versions of GRW with small collapse rates in an eort to move towards more principled and experimentally-informed lower bounds for .
It has been hypothesized that the time evolution of wavefunctions might include collapses, rather than being governed by the Schrödinger equation. The leading models of such an evolution, Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) and continuous spontaneous localization (CSL), have two parameters (or new constants of nature): the collapse width σ and the collapse rate λ. We draw a diagram of the σλ-plane showing the region that is empirically refuted and the region that is philosophically unsatisfactory.
It is often assumed that the only effect of the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (`GRW') dynamical collapse mechanism on the `tails' of the wavefunction (that is, the components of superpositions on which the collapse is \emph{not} centred) is to reduce their weight. In consequence the tails are often thought to behave exactly as do the various branches in the Everett interpretation except for their much lower weight. These assumptions are demonstrably inaccurate: the collapse mechanism has substantial and detectable effects within the tails. The relevance of this misconception for the dynamical-collapse theories is debatable, though.
Among several possibilities for what reality could be like in view of the empirical facts of quantum mechanics, one is provided by theories of spontaneous wave function collapse, the best known of which is the Ghirardi–Rimini–Weber (GRW) theory. We show mathematically that in GRW theory (and similar theories) there are limitations to knowledge, that is, inhabitants of a GRW universe cannot find out all the facts true of their universe. As a specific example, they cannot accurately measure the number of collapses that a given physical system undergoes during a given time interval; in fact, they cannot reliably measure whether one or zero collapses occur. Put differently, in a GRW universe certain meaningful, factual questions are empirically undecidable. We discuss several types of limitations to knowledge and compare them with those in other (no-collapse) versions of quantum mechanics, such as Bohmian mechanics. Most of our results also apply to observer-induced collapses as in orthodox quantum mechanics (as opposed to the spontaneous collapses of GRW theory). 1 Introduction 1.1 Known examples of limitations to knowledge 1.2 Remarks2 Brief Review of GRW Theories 2.1 The GRW process 2.2 GRWm 2.3 GRWf3 First Examples of Limitations to Knowledge in GRW Theories4 Measurements of Flashes in GRWf, or of Collapses in GRWm 4.1 An example in which ψ is known 4.2 Other choices of ψ 4.3 Experiments beginning before t 2 4.4 If ψ is random 4.5 Optimal way of distinguishing two density matrices 4.6 If ψ is unknown5 Measurements of m(x) in GRWmAppendix
It is often assumed that the only effect of the Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (`GRW') dynamical collapse mechanism on the `tails' of the wavefunction (that is, the components of superpositions on which the collapse is \emph{not} centred) is to reduce their weight. In consequence it seems to be generally accepted that the tails behave exactly as do the various branches in the Everett interpretation except for their much lower weight. These assumptions are demonstrably inaccurate: the collapse mechanism has substantial and detectable effects within the tails. The relevance of this misconception for the dynamical-collapse theories is debatable, though.
Quantum mechanics gives many versions of reality but we perceive only one. One potential explanation for this, the one considered here, is that the wave function collapses down to just one version. The experimental situation is briefly reviewed, with no evidence found for collapse. The theoretical position is also reviewed and found wanting. Collapse-by-observation schemes are logically untenable. A mathematical theory of collapse must be nonlinear, a significant departure from current quantum theory. In addition, the primary candidate theory, the GRW-Pearle model, requires instantaneous, non-local transmission of information. It also requires transmission of information across versions of reality, which is forbidden in current quantum mechanics. And there is no apparent physical quantity, such as particle number, that can provide the mechanism for collapse in all cases. Further, these aspects, which are in disagreement with current theory, seem to be necessary for any mathematical theory of collapse. The conclusion is that the outlook for mathematical collapse schemes is not encouraging.
Quantum mechanics is grounded on the superposition principle, which is the source both of its tremendous success and technological power, as well as of the problems in understanding it. The reason why superpositions do not propagate from the microscopic to the macroscopic world are subject to debate. Spontaneous wave function collapse models have been formulated to take into account a progressive breakdown of quantum superpositions when systems are large enough; they do so by modifying the Schrödinger dynamics, and therefore they are empirically testable. Deviations are tiny, and require precision measurements. I will review collapse models, and present the most recent experimental tests.