Can massive superpositions exclude the GRW collapse rate?
In plain words
Collapse models modify quantum mechanics so that large objects lose superpositions on their own. The original proposed rate has never been ruled out.
Precise statement
Continuous spontaneous localization with rate $\lambda$ and length $r_C$. Exclude $\lambda = 10^{-16}\ \mathrm{s}^{-1}$ at $r_C = 10^{-5}\ \mathrm{cm}$ (the GRW value of Ghirardi, Rimini and Weber) by interferometric or non-interferometric (heating, noise) tests with massive objects. Answer: yes or no, with the excluded region in the $(\lambda, r_C)$ plane.
What would settle it
An interferometry or heating experiment whose excess-decoherence bound lies below $\lambda$ = $10^{-16}$ $\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ at $r_C$ = $10^{-5}$ cm.
Status in the literature
Unverified note: it names recent work and was partly written without a live literature search; it awaits a check by an editor.
Non-interferometric tests (to 2021) constrain the enhanced Adler rates, and 2025 interference of sodium clusters above 170,000 amu (Pedalino et al., arXiv:2507.21211) tightened interferometric bounds; the GRW point is not reported excluded, which should be checked against the 2025 exclusion plot.
Parent problems
- Special case of Does any parameter window of white-noise CSL remain viable? · open · from revision 1 Excluding the GRW point is one point of closing the CSL window The parent was revised since revision 1: it now states another question.
Results
No results have been posted on this problem yet.
Post a result · how results are checked
Sign in to follow or save this problem
Comments (0)
Comments are not records: they are not signed, stamped or logged. How comments work
No comments yet.
Sign in to comment.