Can massive superpositions exclude the GRW collapse rate? · revision history

Revision 2

Accepted · core change · record

Changes against revision 1:

Title
Can massive superpositions exclude the GRW collapse rate?
Plain
Collapse models modify quantum mechanics so that large objects lose superpositions on their own. The original proposed rate has never been ruled out.
Precise · changed · core
Revision 1: Continuous spontaneous localization with rate $\lambda$ and length $r_C$. Exclude $\lambda = 1e-16\ \mathrm{s}^{-1}$ at $r_C = 1e-5\ \mathrm{cm}$ (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.
Revision 2: 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.
Settled by · changed · core
Revision 1: An interferometry or heating experiment whose excess-decoherence bound lies below lambda = 1e-16 s^-1 at r_C = 1e-5 cm.
Revision 2: An interferometry or heating experiment whose excess-decoherence bound lies below $\lambda$ = $10^{-16}$ $\mathrm{s}^{-1}$ at $r_C$ = $10^{-5}$ cm.
Kind
well-posed
Answer type
yes-no
References
(empty)
Literature status
open
Status note
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.
Posed since
1986

Decisions