Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Information versus Physicality: On the Nature of the Wavefunctions of Quantum Mechanics

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The PBR theorem fails because its hidden-state mapping contradicts superposition and Born's rule.

desk verdict The central argument is a non sequitur: PBR does not require the map from quantum states to ontic distributions to be linear, so the paper's refutation collapses. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09062 v1 pith:LADGR3FP submitted 2025-06-06 quant-ph

C. S. Unnikrishnan This is my paper
classification quant-ph
keywords quantumstateontologyPBRtheorempsi-epistemicmodelswavefunctionrealityBorn'srulesuperpositionhiddenvariabledistributionsfoundationsofmechanics
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper targets the widely cited PBR no-go theorem, which claims to prove that quantum wavefunctions are physically real by ruling out all ψ-epistemic models. The author argues that PBR's opening move—associating each wavefunction with a distribution of hypothetical underlying physical states—contradicts the linear structure of quantum superpositions together with Born's quadratic probability rule. If the author is right, the PBR proof cannot establish the ontological reality of the wavefunction, and the question of whether ψ is a catalogue of expectations or a real field remains open. The paper further contends that ordinary preparation-and-projective-measurement statistics are in principle unable to settle that question.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the PBR mapping $\mu_\psi(\lambda)$ from a quantum state to a distribution of underlying physical states, tested against the superposition identities of the linear vector space. The engine of the argument is the pair of states $|\psi_+\rangle = (|\psi_1\rangle + |\psi_2\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ and $|\psi_-\rangle = (|\psi_1\rangle - |\psi_2\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$: if the base states have non-overlapping distributions, both superpositions must be combinations of those same distributions, forcing a shared physical state for mutually orthogonal quantum states. The same mechanism is then applied to continuous distributions, where an overlap $q$ between non-orthogonal states is shown to force a nonzero probability for projecting a prepared state onto a state orthogonal to it, and to identical-particle symmetries, where the antisymmetric state must vanish as $x_1 \to x_2$.

What would settle it

A concrete check would be to construct a ψ-epistemic model that assigns each quantum state its own distribution without requiring superpositions to inherit combinations of base-state distributions, while still reproducing all quantum predictions for projective measurements. The paper's Section II.B derivation implies that any overlap $q$ between two non-orthogonal states forces a nonzero probability proportional to $q|\langle \psi'_1|\psi_2\rangle|^2$ for a projection onto a state orthogonal to the prepared one; a working model that avoids that forced probability while matching quantum statistics would refute the paper's derivation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the PBR no-go theorem does not prove the reality of the quantum state, because its initial mapping from a wavefunction to a distribution of hypothetical physical states is internally inconsistent with the linear structure of quantum superpositions and with Born's rule. For two orthogonal states $|\psi_1\rangle$ and $|\psi_2\rangle$ assigned non-overlapping distributions $\mu_{\psi_1}(\lambda)$ and $\mu_{\psi_2}(\lambda)$, the theorem's logic forces the superposition $|\psi_+\rangle = (|\psi_1\rangle + |\psi_2\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ and the orthogonal superposition $|\psi_-\rangle = (|\psi_1\rangle - |\psi_2\rangle)/\sqrt{2}$ to draw on the same pair of distributions, producing a common physical state for two states whose inner product is $\langle \psi_+ | \psi_-\rangle = 0$. Since projective measurements forbid any overlap between orthogonal states, the author concludes that the PBR mapping is invalid, and that what PBR actually rules out is only its own unphysical model—not ψ-epistemic interpretations generally.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the assumption that the hidden-state distribution for a superposition must be some combination of the distributions of the superposed states; the PBR framework itself does not require that, and if the assumption is dropped, the contradiction the paper describes does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The PBR theorem no longer rules out ψ-epistemic accounts of quantum mechanics; only the specific hidden-state model PBR postulates is excluded.
  • No experiment built from state preparation and projective measurement can decide whether the wavefunction is ontic or epistemic, because all quantum statistics are insensitive to that distinction.
  • Interference experiments that alter phases and magnitudes locally indicate some real propagating entity, though not necessarily the wavefunction itself, so an ontic theory with an epistemic wavefunction remains a live option.
  • The PBR scenario requires additional, unstated assumptions once two systems are entangled, because the original mapping from individual states to distributions no longer applies.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • By extension, other ψ-ontology theorems that rely on assigning distributions to superposed states as mixtures may face the same linearity obstruction, even if the paper only names PBR.
  • A constructive way to press the point would be to write down an explicit epistemic model that reproduces quantum predictions while assigning distributions independently to every state in a basis, and to check where it violates PBR's assumptions rather than linearity.
  • The author's positive suggestion—an ontic underlying wave-like entity whose ensemble average is the epistemic wavefunction—is programmatic; the paper does not provide that theory, only argues that the option remains open.
  • If the PBR theorem is invalid, experimental tests inspired by it should be reinterpreted as tests of the specific hidden-state model, not as direct evidence about the nature of ψ.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper argues that the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph (PBR) theorem is invalid because its starting assumption—that a wavefunction |ψ⟩ is mapped to a distribution μψ(λ) of hidden physical states—contradicts the linear structure of quantum mechanics together with Born's rule. The author presents several lines of argument: in Section II.A, superpositions such as |ψ±⟩=(|ψ1⟩±|ψ2⟩)/√2 must be mapped to combinations of the non-overlapping distributions μψ1 and μψ2, forcing orthogonal states to share physical states; in Section II.B, overlapping distributions for non-orthogonal states imply a nonzero probability for projecting onto a state orthogonal to the prepared state; in Section II.C, symmetric and antisymmetric two-particle states cannot both be formed from the same distributions; and in Section III.B, projective measurements in an entangled basis break the assumed product-state mapping. The paper concludes that PBR rules out only a specific unphysical model, not ψ-epistemic interpretations in general.

Significance. If the argument were correct, it would undermine a prominent no-go theorem in quantum foundations. The paper is clearly written and gives a careful restatement of the PBR construction in Section III.B, and it is right that any ontological model must specify how joint measurements in entangled bases are represented. However, the central mathematical claim is not supported. The step from the Hilbert-space equality |ψ+⟩=(|ψ1⟩+|ψ2⟩)/√2 to a constraint on probability measures μψ(λ) is an additional assumption that is foreign to the PBR framework. Standard ontological models assign each preparation an arbitrary measure, with no linearity or convex-combination condition relating measures of superpositions to those of their components. The paper offers no derivation of this condition from PBR's stated assumptions, and it supplies no machine-checked or independently verifiable proof. The repeated use of the same unsupported premise in Sections II.A–II.C and III.B means that the main result—the inconsistency of PBR's starting assumption—does not follow. If the premise is dropped, the alleged contradictions disappear.

major comments (5)
  1. [II.A, Eq. (1)] The load-bearing step is the claim that |ψ+⟩ 'is mapped to some combination of the non-overlapping distributions μψ1(λ) and μψ2(λ)' because of the 'total equivalence of the ψ-states on both sides of the equal sign.' This is not a consequence of the PBR framework. In the Harrigan–Spekkens/PBR definition, an ontological model assigns to each preparation procedure P_ψ an arbitrary probability measure μ_ψ(λ) over Λ; no condition requires μ_{|ψ+⟩} to be a function of μ_{|ψ1⟩} and μ_{|ψ2⟩} when |ψ+⟩=(|ψ1⟩+|ψ2⟩)/√2. A superposition is a distinct preparation, not a probabilistic mixture. Without this extra combination premise, the conclusion that |ψ+⟩ and |ψ−⟩ share physical states does not follow, and the orthogonality of |ψ+⟩ and |ψ−⟩ creates no contradiction.
  2. [II.B] The overlap argument conflates the ontic state λ with the quantum state. If λ lies in the overlap of μψ1 and μψ2, PBR's definition says only that the same λ is compatible with both states; it does not imply that a measurement on the prepared state ψ1 behaves as if the state were ψ2 with probability q/2. The probability of outcome corresponding to projector |ψ1'⟩⟨ψ1'| is ∫ μψ1(λ) ξ_{ψ1'}(λ) dλ, and this can vanish even when μψ1 and μψ2 overlap, because response functions need not be proportional to the overlap. The asserted violation of ⟨ψ1'|ψ1⟩=0 is therefore not established.
  3. [III.B] The entanglement argument rests on a misunderstanding of what is mapped in PBR. PBR maps prepared product states to distributions; the final measurement, even if in an entangled basis, is simply a joint measurement on the two physical states λ1 and λ2. Nothing in PBR requires the measurement device itself to be associated with a quantum state, nor does performing an entangled measurement 'break' the preparation mapping. The statement that 'the original mapping between the ψ-functions and the distributions of physical states is broken' conflates preparations with measurements, and it is load-bearing for the author's claim that PBR needs extra assumptions about entangled states.
  4. [II.C] The identical-particle argument relies on the same unjustified combination premise. The states |Ψd⟩ and |Ψe⟩ are not independent preparation procedures with separate PBR distributions in the relevant sense: for identical particles, the symmetrized and antisymmetrized states are not obtained by probabilistically mixing two distinguishable preparations. Moreover, the conclusion that 'there are no physical states corresponding to |Ψa⟩ when x1=x2' depends on the unsupported assumption that μ_{Ψa} is built from μ_{Ψd} and μ_{Ψe}. This section does not provide an independent demonstration of inconsistency.
  5. [IV] The concluding claim that 'the ontological status of the wavefunction cannot be determined by a standard process involving the preparation and projective detection of quantum states' does not follow from the alleged flaw in PBR. Even if the author's criticisms of PBR were valid, that would only show that one particular theorem fails; the broader claim would require a separate argument that no preparation-and-measurement scheme can bear on the ontic/epistemic distinction. This overreach is not supported by the body of the paper.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Introduction] The name 'Rudolf' in 'Pusey, Barrett and Rudolf' is a misspelling; the published name is 'Rudolph' (see reference [10]).
  2. [II.A, Eq. (1)] The expansion of ⟨ψ−|ψ+⟩ is written with incorrect signs; the terms should be (1/2)(⟨ψ1|ψ1⟩ + ⟨ψ1|ψ2⟩ − ⟨ψ2|ψ1⟩ − ⟨ψ2|ψ2⟩). The zero result is unaffected for orthonormal states, but the displayed equation as written is wrong.
  3. [II.A] The phrase 'projective measurements in the basis {|ψ1⟩,|ψ1⟩}' should presumably read '{|ψ1⟩,|ψ2⟩}'.
  4. [II.B] The relation between the overlap probability q and the factor q/2 is not defined; Figure 2 depicts q as an area, but the text never gives the precise normalization.
  5. [Reference [13]] The author of 'Are quantum states real?' is Lucien Hardy, not 'Hardy P.'.
  6. [Introduction] The abbreviation 'PRB' in 'the PRB general claim' should be 'PBR'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's PBR critique is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs; the two self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation targets PBR's assumption that each quantum state is associated with a distribution of ontic states mu_psi(lambda) and argues that this assumption, combined with the linear structure of quantum superpositions and Born's rule, produces a contradiction via orthogonal states such as |psi+> and |psi->. That argument may be open to the objection that 'the state |psi+> is mapped to some combination of the non-overlapping distributions mu_psi1(lambda) and mu_psi2(lambda)' is an additional premise not required by the PBR definitions or by the Harrigan-Spekkens framework; but that is a correctness or validity gap, not a circular derivation. The paper does not fit any parameter and then rename the fit as a prediction, nor does it import its conclusion from its own prior work by citation. The citations to the author's own work, refs. [22] and [24], are contextual: ref. [22] is invoked to relate the alleged PBR inconsistency to earlier hidden-variable no-go results, and ref. [24] is cited for the broader program of an ontic dynamics with an epistemic wavefunction. Neither citation carries the load of the central contradiction argument. The claimed derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks, so the circularity score is low; whether the argument is sound is a separate technical question.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new free parameters or entities. Its argument depends on an unstated and unjustified axiom that the map from quantum states to hidden-state distributions respects linear superposition. This axiom is not part of the PBR framework and is false for typical ψ-epistemic models.

assumptions (3)
  • ad hoc to paper The distribution over hidden states for a superposition of quantum states must be a combination of the distributions over the superposed states.
    This is the load-bearing premise in Section II.A, used to claim that |ψ+⟩ and |ψ−⟩ must share physical states. It is not part of the PBR definition of ψ-epistemic models, and it is not generally true for ontological models.
  • domain assumption Two orthogonal quantum states must have non-overlapping distributions over hidden states.
    This is standard in ontological models that reproduce quantum measurement statistics; it is also used by PBR. The paper relies on it to conclude that |ψ+⟩ and |ψ−⟩ cannot share states.
  • ad hoc to paper Projective measurements in an entangled basis require entangling the systems, which breaks the original product-state mapping.
    Section III.B; this is presented as a 'conceptual problem' in PBR, but it is not a standard requirement and is not established.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Information versus Physicality: On the Nature of the Wavefunctions of Quantum Mechanics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/LADGR3FP

@misc{pith2026250609062,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Information versus Physicality: On the Nature of the Wavefunctions of Quantum Mechanics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/LADGR3FP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09062}
}
abstract

The physical states of matter and fields are represented in the quantum theory with complex valued wavefunctions, or more generally by quantum states in an abstract linear vector space. Determining the physical nature of wavefunctions remains an open problem that is at the very core of quantum mechanics, About a decade ago, Pusey, Barrett and Rudolf (PBR) claimed to prove an ontologically real status of wavefunctions by ruling out $\psi$-epistemic models. The result was obtained by associating wavefunctions to hypothetical distributions of notional physical states, and by examining whether some physical states were associated with more than one wavefunction, a criterion they chose for defining a wavefunction as `epistemic'. I show that the starting assumption in the PBR argument, of associating a wavefunction with a distribution of physical states, is flawed and contradictory to the linear structure of quantum mechanics coupled with its quadratic Born's rule. Since none of the axioms or calculations of observable statistical results in the standard quantum theory depends on specifying the physical nature of a $\psi$-function, the considerations in the PBR paper, involving a standard process of the preparation and projective measurements of quantum states, cannot address the ontological status of the wavefunctions in space and time.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09062 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: A) The PBR model of the stages of preparation of a quantum state [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: A) Distributions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Die gegenw¨ artige situation in der quantenmechanik

    Schr¨ odinger E. Die gegenw¨ artige situation in der quantenmechanik. Naturwissenschaften 1935;23: 823. doi:10.1007/BF01491914

    work page doi:10.1007/bf01491914 1935

  2. [2]

    Of course, the state |ψ−⟩ gives the same results for projective measurements in the basis {|ψ1⟩,|ψ2⟩}, as the state |ψ+⟩

    Then the state |ψ−⟩ is mapped to some combination of the same two non-overlapping distributions µψ1(λ) and µψ2(λ). Of course, the state |ψ−⟩ gives the same results for projective measurements in the basis {|ψ1⟩,|ψ2⟩}, as the state |ψ+⟩. However, there cannot be even one physical state that is common between |ψ+⟩ and |ψ−⟩ because these two states are mutua...

    work page

  3. [3]

    They further superpose with a relative phase (PS) to give the orthogonal statesζ1 = (ψ1+iψ2)/ √ 2 andζ2 = (ψ1−iψ2)/ √ 2. But, ψ1 and ψ2 are originally mapped to two non-overlapping distributions µψ1 and µψ2 of real physical states in the PBR model, whereas there cannot be even one physical state that is common to φ1 and φ2, or to ζ1 and ζ2. The diagram is...

    work page

  4. [4]

    a measur- ing instrument is uncertain about which state was prepared, and is being projected

    Since|+z⟩ and|−z⟩ are mapped uniquely toµ|+z⟩(λ) andµ|−z⟩(λ), the linear structure of the theory implies that |ψs⟩ (which is the state| +x⟩) is mapped to the non-overlapping distributions µ|+z⟩(λ) and µ|−z⟩(λ) of physical states. This is of course compatible with what one sees in quantum measurements. However, the inconsistency arises because we can have ...

    work page

  5. [5]

    the outcome of a measurement can only depend on the (hypothetical) physical states of the two systems at the time of measurement

    (PBR deal with the general case separately, but this specific case illustrates the argument.) The joint quantum state prepared is one of the four product states|00⟩≡| 0⟩⊗| 0⟩,|0+⟩≡| 0⟩⊗| +⟩,| + 0⟩≡| +⟩⊗| 0⟩, and| + +⟩≡| +⟩⊗| +⟩. Then the states are ‘brought together’ and measured using projections to specific target quantum states, employing suitable macros...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Non-linear Wave Mechanics: A Causal Interpretation

    de Broglie L. Non-linear Wave Mechanics: A Causal Interpretation. 1960. Translated from the French by Knodel AJ and Miller JC. Elsevier Science Ltd. ISBN:9780444401601 15

    work page 1960

  7. [7]

    Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics

    von Neumann J. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press; 1955. ISBN-13 978-0691028934

    work page 1955

  8. [8]

    The Principles of Quantum Mechanics

    Dirac PAM. The Principles of Quantum Mechanics. Clarendon Press,Oxford;1930. ISBN:9780198520115

    work page 1930

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    QBism, where next? ArXiv

    Fuchs CA. QBism, where next? ArXiv. 2023; arXiv.2303.01446. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2303.01446

    2023 doi arXiv

  2. [10]

    Brown HR. (2019). The Reality of the Wavefunction: Old Arguments and New. In:Cordero, A. (eds) Philosophers Look at Quantum Mechanics. Synthese Library, 2019;406. Springer, Cham. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-15659-6 5

    2019 doi

  3. [11]

    Could wavefunctions simultaneously represent knowledge and reality?

    Hance JR, Rarity J, Ladyman J. Could wavefunctions simultaneously represent knowledge and reality?. Quantum Stud.: Math. Found. 2022;9:333. doi:10.1007/s40509-022-00271-3

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    Is the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics ψ-ontic or ψ-epistemic? Found

    Hubert A. Is the statistical interpretation of quantum mechanics ψ-ontic or ψ-epistemic? Found. Phys. 2023;53:16. doi:10.1007/s10701-022-00651-0

    2023 doi

  5. [13]

    The wave function as a true ensemble

    Hance JR, Hossenfelder S. The wave function as a true ensemble. Proc. R. Soc. A. 2022;478:20210705. doi:10.1098/rspa.2021.0705

    2022

  6. [14]

    On the reality of the quantum state

    Pusey MF, Barrett J, Rudolph T. On the reality of the quantum state. Nature Physics. 2012;8:475. doi:10.1038/nphys2309

    2012 doi

  7. [15]

    Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states

    Harrigan N, Spekkens RW. Einstein, incompleteness, and the epistemic view of quantum states. Found. Phys. 2010;40:125. doi:10.1007/s10701-009-9347-0

    2010 doi

  8. [16]

    States vs

    Luc J. States vs. changes of states: A reformulation of the ontic vs. epistemic distinction in quantum mechanics. Found. Phys. 2023;53:22. doi:10.1007/s10701-022-00662-x

    2023 doi

  9. [17]

    Are quantum states real? Int

    Hardy P. Are quantum states real? Int. Jl. Mod. Phys. B 2013:27:1345012. doi:10.1142/S0217979213450124

    2013 doi

  10. [18]

    Schlosshauer M. Fine A. Implications of the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph no-go theorem, Phys. Rev. Lett. 2012;108: 260404.doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.260404

    2012 doi

  11. [19]

    Can different quantum state vectors correspond to the same physical state? An experimental test, New J

    Nigg D, Monz T, Schindler P, Martinez EA, Hennrich M, Blatt R, Pusey MF, Rudolph T, Barrett J. Can different quantum state vectors correspond to the same physical state? An experimental test, New J. Phys. 2016;18:013007. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/18/1/013007

    2016 doi

  12. [20]

    Measurement of the reality of the wave function, Nature Physics 2015;11:249

    Ringbauer M, Duffus B, Branciard C, Calvacanti EG, White AG, Fedrizzi A. Measurement of the reality of the wave function, Nature Physics 2015;11:249. doi:10.1038/nphys3233

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    Is the quantum state real? An extended review of ψ-ontology theorems

    Leifer MS. Is the quantum state real? An extended review of ψ-ontology theorems. Quanta 16 2014;3:67. doi:10.12743/quanta.v3i1.22

    2014 doi

  14. [22]

    How real are quantum states in ψ-ontic models? Found

    Hermens R. How real are quantum states in ψ-ontic models? Found. Phys. 2021;51:38. doi:10.1007/s10701-021-00448-7

    2021 doi

  15. [23]

    Aidala CA

    Carcassi G, Oldofredi A. Aidala CA. On the reality of the quantum state once again: A no-go theorem for ψ-ontic models. Found. Phys. 2024;54:14. doi:10.1007/s10701-023-00748-0

    2024 doi

  16. [24]

    Relational quantum mechanics and the PBR Theorem: A peaceful coexistence

    Oldofredi A, Calosi C. Relational quantum mechanics and the PBR Theorem: A peaceful coexistence. Found. Phys. 2021;51:82. doi:10.1007/s10701-021-00485-2

    2021 doi

  17. [25]

    Comment on a no-go theorem forψ-ontic models

    Walleghem L, Khanna S, Bhavsar R. Comment on a no-go theorem forψ-ontic models. Found. Phys. 2025;55:23. doi:10.1007/s10701-025-00836-3

    2025 doi

  18. [26]

    Establishing J

    Unnikrishnan CS. Establishing J. von Neumann’s result of the incompatibility be- tween hidden variables and quantum mechanics. Academia Quantum. 2025;2(2). doi:10.20935/AcadQuant7657

    2025 doi

  19. [27]

    Reply to criticisms, in Schilpp PA

    Einstein A. Reply to criticisms, in Schilpp PA. (Ed), Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Open Court Publishing Co. 1949. ISBN-13. 978-0875482866

    1949

  20. [28]

    Reconstructing quantum mechanics without foundational problems

    Unnikrishnan CS. Reconstructing quantum mechanics without foundational problems. ArXiv. 2018;arXiv:1812.06088. doi:10.48550/arXiv.1812.06088

    2018 doi arXiv

  21. [29]

    Was David Bohm a wave function realist? J

    Pylkk¨ anen P. Was David Bohm a wave function realist? J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2025;2948:012013. doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2948/1/012013

    2025 doi

  22. [30]

    Collapse models: A theoretical, experimental and philosophical review, Entropy 2023;25(4):645

    Bassi A, Dorato M, Ulbricht H. Collapse models: A theoretical, experimental and philosophical review, Entropy 2023;25(4):645. doi:10.3390/e25040645

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    Exploring the unification of quantum theory and general relativity with a Bose-Einstein condensate, New J

    Howl R, Penrose R, Fuentes I. Exploring the unification of quantum theory and general relativity with a Bose-Einstein condensate, New J. Phys. 2019;21:043047. doi:10.1088/1367- 2630/ab104a

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Di´ osi L, Laubenstein M

    Donadi S, Piscicchia K, Curceanu C. Di´ osi L, Laubenstein M. Bassi A. Underground test of gravity-related wave function collapse. Nat. Phys. 2021;17:74. doi:10.1038/s41567-020-1008-4

    2021 doi

  25. [33]

    Gravity cannot cure quantum mechanics of its malady of the collapse of the wavefunction, ArXiv

    Unnikrishnan CS, Gillies GT. Gravity cannot cure quantum mechanics of its malady of the collapse of the wavefunction, ArXiv. 2021; ArXiv.2105.15146. doi:10.48550/arXiv.2105.15146

    2021 doi arXiv

  26. [34]

    Einstein on locality and separability

    Howard D. Einstein on locality and separability. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 1985:16;171. doi:10.1016/0039-3681(85)90001-9 17

    1985 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.