Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Probing Spin and Lifetime Correlations in Entangled Hyperon-AntiHyperon Pairs

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proposes that quantum entanglement between hyperons can leave a measurable trace in the times at which the two particles decay, and it derives three data-driven observables that would reveal such temporal coherence.

desk verdict A genuinely new temporal-entanglement proposal for Lambda–anti-Lambda pairs whose central baseline assumption and permutation significance test both need fixing before the claims can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.18507 v2 pith:VWD53NHI submitted 2025-07-24 nucl-ex hep-exhep-phnucl-th

Aihong Tang This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-exhep-exhep-phnucl-th
keywords quantumentanglementhyperondecaytime-domainspin-lifetimecorrelationlifetime-lifetimecovarianceLambdaantipairsmixed-eventbaselinepermutationtest
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

The paper tries to establish that quantum entanglement between two unstable particles can appear in the times at which they decay, not only in the angles of their decay products. It argues that for an entangled $\Lambda$–$\bar\Lambda$ pair the joint decay-time distribution need not factorize, so a nonzero covariance between the two decay times would be a signal of temporal quantum coherence. To make this testable, it constructs three observables from reconstructed decay times and opening angles, using mixed events to subtract acceptance effects and permutation trials to calibrate significance. A nonzero value of any of these observables would force a revision of the standard independent-exponential-decay picture of entangled pairs.

What carries the argument

The central object is the joint survival amplitude $A(t_1,t_2)=\langle\Psi|e^{-iH_1t_1}e^{-iH_2t_2}|\Psi\rangle$; when the pair state $\Psi$ is nonseparable, the joint decay-time distribution $P(t_1,t_2)=|A(t_1,t_2)|^2$ need not factor, which is what makes lifetime correlations possible. The testable machinery has three parts: the per-pair spin weight $w_i=\alpha_1\alpha_2\cos\theta_i^*$, the mixed-event ratio $R(\cos\theta^*,\Delta t)=N_{\rm SE}/N_{\rm ME}$ that removes acceptance effects, and the permutation-calibrated correlator $\Delta C_\tau=C^{\rm SE}_\tau-C^{\rm ME}_\tau$, which tests whether spin weights and lifetime products correlate beyond statistical noise. The $\Delta t$-binned angular slopes probe relative-time spin-lifetime correlations, while the standardized lifetime-product correlator and the plain covariance $\mathrm{Cov}(t_1,t_2)$ capture common-mode temporal correlations.

What would settle it

A Monte Carlo simulation with a strictly factorized joint decay distribution and realistic vertex resolution, run through the same mixed-event and permutation analysis, would expose any false covariance produced by reconstruction; a nonzero $\Delta C_\tau$ in that simulation would mean the observable is not a clean probe of time-domain entanglement.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the decay times $t_1$ and $t_2$ of an entangled $\Lambda$–$\bar\Lambda$ pair are legitimate generalized-measurement outcomes, and that nothing in quantum mechanics forces their joint distribution to factor. Because the survival amplitude $A(t_1,t_2)=\langle\Psi|e^{-iH_1t_1}e^{-iH_2t_2}|\Psi\rangle$ need not decompose into single-particle pieces, the joint decay-time density $P(t_1,t_2)=|A(t_1,t_2)|^2$ can carry genuine time-domain correlations, and a nonzero covariance $\mathrm{Cov}(t_1,t_2)$ would be direct evidence of temporal quantum coherence. The paper develops three data-driven tests for this: a lifetime-lifetime covariance, a $\Delta t$-binned scan of the spin-correlation coefficient, and a permutation-calibrated spin-lifetime correlator, with the factorized independent-exponential decay $P(t_1)P(t_2)$ as the null hypothesis throughout.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the baseline built by pairing each hyperon with a partner from a different event removes every non-entanglement correlation between the two decay times; if residual covariances from kinematics, collision multiplicity, or vertex reconstruction survive, a nonzero signal would be misread as temporal quantum coherence.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A nonzero lifetime-lifetime covariance in $\Lambda$–$\bar\Lambda$ pairs would be the first direct evidence of time-domain entanglement in unstable hadrons, extending entanglement tests beyond angular observables.
  • With roughly $10^{11}$ pairs available in existing collision data, the proposed tests could reach fractional covariances of order $10^{-5}$ at the $1\sigma$ level, making the measurement feasible now.
  • The $\Delta t$-binned spin test can resolve percent-level modulation of the spin-correlation coefficient $P(\Delta t)$, which a single time-integrated measurement cannot see.
  • A null result would place new upper limits on any hidden temporal correlations and sharpen constraints on wavefunction-collapse and decoherence models.
  • The same analysis chain carries over to other hyperon species, including double-strange and charm-strange baryons and mixed-species channels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • One question the paper does not address: whether the covariance tracks the spin structure of the pair; measuring it in bins of the opening angle $\theta^*$ would test that directly.
  • The mixed-event subtraction's adequacy could be checked with control pairs produced in independent subprocesses within the same event, which should show zero covariance if the baseline is complete.
  • The paper's time-dilation remark suggests comparing collisions at different energies as a cross-check, since changing the boost changes the proper-time distributions and could expose kinematic artifacts.
  • A Monte Carlo study with realistically smeared vertices and a strictly factorized decay distribution would show how much of the quoted $10^{-5}$ sensitivity survives detector effects, a step the paper leaves to implementation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript proposes data-driven tests for spin-lifetime and lifetime-lifetime correlations in entangled Lambda-antilambda pairs produced in high-energy collisions. It defines an opening-angle distribution normalized by a mixed-event baseline, a Delta-t-binned scan of the spin-correlation coefficient, a per-pair spin-weighted lifetime correlator with permutation-based significance, and a simple lifetime-lifetime covariance. The central claim is that a nonzero covariance between the reconstructed proper decay times of the two hyperons would reveal time-domain entanglement and nonfactorizable temporal coherence.

Significance. If the proposed observables were robustly connected to quantum temporal correlations, this would open a genuinely new experimental window: decay-time observables in entangled hadron pairs have not been studied before, and the paper correctly emphasizes that the null hypothesis of independent exponential decays is model-independent and the required data already exist at BESIII, RHIC, and the LHC. The paper also has the merit of proposing concrete, implementation-ready statistics and explicitly recognizing that decay time is a generalized quantum measurement. However, the significance of any measured covariance depends entirely on whether the mixed-event baseline and the permutation test remove all classical same-event correlations; as written, this is not demonstrated, and the statistical calibration of the permutation test is incomplete.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (7) and Eqs. (15)-(16)] The mixed-event baseline cannot, as claimed, remove all non-entanglement correlations between t1 and t2. Since t_i = L_i m/(|p_i| c) is reconstructed from the same primary vertex for both hyperons, a reconstruction error in that vertex enters both decay lengths in a correlated way; event-by-event flow, multiplicity, and boost fluctuations likewise affect both legs of a same-event pair but not legs drawn from different mixed events. Matching mixed-event pairs only in centrality and vertex position does not reproduce these common-mode correlations, so C_SE - C_ME can be nonzero for entirely classical reasons. The manuscript must demonstrate with a concrete model or simulation that the baseline cancels these effects, or propose an estimator that is insensitive to them, before a nonzero DeltaC_tau or Cov(t1,t2) can be attributed to temporal entanglement.
  2. [Section II-B, Eq. (17)] The permutation test in Eq. (17) treats C_ME as a fixed constant when building the null distribution of DeltaC_tau^{(j)}. This ignores the sampling uncertainty of the mixed-event subtraction and makes the resulting p-value anti-conservative. The null distribution should also include fluctuations of C_ME, for example by permuting or resampling across the same-event and mixed-event samples jointly, or by using a bootstrap that redraws both terms. Without this, the claimed significance calibration is not valid.
  3. [Section II, Eqs. (3)-(4)] The theoretical foundation connecting a nonzero lifetime covariance to temporal entanglement is underdeveloped. Equation (4) asserts P(t1,t2) = |A(t1,t2)|^2 with A(t1,t2) = <Psi| exp(-iH1 t1) exp(-iH2 t2)|Psi>, but no explicit POVM or generalized measurement operator for the reconstructed proper decay time is provided, and the relation between this amplitude and the experimentally reconstructed t_i (including vertex resolution and acceptance) is not derived. Moreover, the spin and time degrees of freedom need not be coupled: a nonfactorizable spin state can still yield factorizable decay-time distributions. The paper needs a concrete toy model showing under what conditions the proposed observables are nonzero in an entangled state and zero under independent exponential decays, including the effect of the classical common-mode correlations identified above.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section II-B, text after Eq. (18)] The phrase 'Nperm trails' should read 'Nperm trials'.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (9)] Equation (9) writes P(t1,t2) proportional to R(cos theta*, t2 - t1), but R is defined as a ratio of counts, not a probability density; the proportionality and normalization should be stated more carefully.
  3. [References] Reference [16] lacks author and collaboration information; it should list the collaboration and authors as in the other references.
  4. [Section III] The sensitivity estimate of epsilon ~ 1e-5 for N ~ 1e11 pairs assumes statistical uncertainty only; because the systematic uncertainty from vertex resolution and mixed-event matching is not quantified, the statement that fractional correlations at the 1e-5 level are 'within reach' is premature.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the proposed lifetime-correlation tests use an explicit independent-decay null hypothesis and data-driven estimators; no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper is a measurement proposal rather than a derivation, and its claimed results are not obtained by fitting the target signal. The null hypothesis is the factorized independent-exponential form P(t1,t2)=P(t1)P(t2) (Eq. 1), and the proposed estimators—R(cosθ*,Δt) in Eq. (7), the Δt-binned spin coefficient in Eqs. (10)–(12), the permutation-based ΔCτ in Eqs. (13)–(18), and the simple covariance Cov(t1,t2)—are all constructed from the data without using a nonzero temporal correlation as an input. The sensitivity estimate Cov(t1,t2)=εσt^2 with signal-to-noise ε√N is a statistical scaling relation based on an assumed sample size, not a fit parameter disguised as a prediction. The cited spin-correlation result [16] is an external experimental measurement used as motivation and for the established angular-analysis framework; the new temporal observables are not derived from it. Concerns about the mixed-event baseline removing common-mode vertex, flow, or reconstruction correlations are systematic-error or interpretation risks, not circularity: they do not make the estimator equivalent to its own input. No self-definitional, fitted-input-called-prediction, or self-citation-load-bearing step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central proposal rests on five unstated or weakly supported premises: the form of the joint decay-time distribution, the coupling of spin entanglement to decay times, the completeness of the mixed-event baseline, the treatment of C_ME as fixed, and the purely exponential lifetime assumption. None of these are established by data or by a dedicated derivation in the paper.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The joint distribution of decay times equals the absolute square of the joint survival amplitude: P(t1,t2)=|<Psi|e^{-iH1t1}e^{-iH2t2}|Psi>|^2.
    Stated in Section II, Eq. (3)-(4). For unstable particles the decay-time density requires a measurement-theoretic treatment; this form is the joint survival probability, not the joint decay-time density.
  • ad hoc to paper A generalized measurement on one member of an entangled pair can constrain the decay-time outcome on the other even when the entanglement is spin-only.
    Central motivation in Section I. No model shows how spin entanglement couples to the spin-independent decay width.
  • domain assumption The mixed-event baseline removes all non-entanglement correlations between t1 and t2.
    Used in Eq. (7) and Eqs. (15)-(16). Event-level common-mode effects (multiplicity, flow, vertex, reconstruction) may not be fully removed by centrality and vertex matching.
  • ad hoc to paper The mixed-event term C_ME can be treated as fixed in the permutation null.
    Section II-B, Eq. (17). The permutation test neglects the sampling uncertainty of C_ME, so p-values are anti-conservative.
  • domain assumption Each hyperon has a constant, spin-independent decay rate (purely exponential lifetime).
    Section I, Eq. (2), the null hypothesis. This is the standard Weisskopf-Wigner approximation; non-exponential short-time behavior is ignored.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Probing Spin and Lifetime Correlations in Entangled Hyperon-AntiHyperon Pairs." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VWD53NHI

@misc{pith2026250718507,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Probing Spin and Lifetime Correlations in Entangled Hyperon-AntiHyperon Pairs},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VWD53NHI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.18507}
}
read the original abstract

Quantum entanglement has now been demonstrated in several hadronic systems, revealing that non-classical spin correlations survive even through the strong-interaction hadronization process. To date, however, all studies have focused exclusively on angular observables, leaving the possibility untouched that quantum coherence might also influence the decay times of entangled partners. In this work we propose data-driven tests of spin-lifetime and lifetime-lifetime correlations for Lambda-antiLambda pairs produced in high-energy collisions. By examining the opening-angle distribution in slices of Delta t, constructing a pair-wise spin-lifetime correlator, and testing a simple lifetime-lifetime covariance, we search for deviations from independent exponential decay that align with known spin correlations. Observation of nonzero lifetime correlations would compel a reassessment of how entanglement manifests in decaying systems, revealing hitherto unexplored temporal coherence.

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Manipulating Bell nonlocality and entanglement in polarized electron-positron annihilation

    hep-ph 2026-02 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    Polarized lepton beams can tune hyperon-antihyperon entanglement and Bell nonlocality, with transverse polarization capable of producing maximally entangled pairs.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    S. J. Freedman, J. F. Clauser, Experimental test of local hidden-variable theories, Phys. Rev. Lett. 28 (1972) 938–941. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.938. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.28.938

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.28.938 1972

  2. [2]

    Aspect, P

    A. Aspect, P. Grangier, G. Roger, Experimental realization of einstein-podolsky-rosen-bohm gedankenexperiment: A new violation of bell’s inequalities, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49 (1982) 91–94. URL:https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 49.91. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.49.91

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett 1982

  3. [3]

    Ablikim, et al

    M. Ablikim, et al. (BESIII Collaboration), Polarization and entanglement in baryon–antibaryon pair production in electron–positron annihilation, Nature Physics 15 (2019) 631–634. doi:doi:10.1038/s41567-019-0494-8

    doi:10.1038/s41567-019-0494-8 2019

  4. [4]

    S. Wu, C. Qian, Q. Wang, X.-R. Zhou, Bell nonlocality and entanglement in e+e- →YY¯ at BESIII, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 054012. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.054012. arXiv:2406.16298

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Fabbrichesi, R

    M. Fabbrichesi, R. Floreanini, E. Gabrielli, L. Marzola, Bell inequality is violated in charmonium decays, Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) 053008. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.110.053008. arXiv:2406.17772

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Albrecht, et al

    H. Albrecht, et al. (ARGUS), Observation of B0 - anti-B0 Mixing, Phys. Lett. B 192 (1987) 245–252. doi:doi:10.1016/0370- 2693(87)91177-4

    doi:10.1016/0370- 1987

  7. [7]

    Angelopoulos, et al

    A. Angelopoulos, et al. (CPLEAR), First direct observation of time reversal noninvariance in the neutral kaon system, Phys. Lett. B 444 (1998) 43–51. doi:doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(98)01356-2

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(98)01356-2 1998

  8. [8]

    Aubert, et al

    B. Aubert, et al. (BaBar), Observation of CP violation in the B0 meson system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 091801. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.091801. arXiv:hep-ex/0107013

    arXiv 2001

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Abe, et al

    K. Abe, et al. (Belle), Observation of large CP violation in the neutral B meson system, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87 (2001) 091802. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.87.091802. arXiv:hep-ex/0107061

    2001 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Abe, et al

    K. Abe, et al. (Belle), An Improved measurement of mixing induced CP violation in the neutral B meson system, Phys. Rev. D 66 (2002) 071102. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.071102. arXiv:hep-ex/0208025

    2002 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Go, et al

    A. Go, et al. (Belle), Measurement of EPR-type flavour entanglement in Upsilon(4S) — > B0 anti-B0 decays, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99 (2007) 131802. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.131802. arXiv:quant-ph/0702267

    2007 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Ambrosino, et al

    F. Ambrosino, et al. (KLOE), First observation of quantum interference in the process ϕ →K(S)K(L) →π+π−π+π−: A Test of quantum mechanics and CPT symmetry, Phys. Lett. B 642 (2006) 315–321. doi:doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2006.09.046. arXiv:hep-ex/0607027

    2006 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J. A. Formaggio, D. I. Kaiser, M. M. Murskyj, T. E. Weiss, Violation of the Leggett-Garg Inequality in Neutrino Oscilla- tions, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 (2016) 050402. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.050402. arXiv:1602.00041

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Aad, et al

    G. Aad, et al. (ATLAS), Observation of quantum entanglement with top quarks at the ATLAS detector, Nature 633 (2024) 542–547. doi:doi:10.1038/s41586-024-07824-z. arXiv:2311.07288

    2024 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Hayrapetyan, et al

    A. Hayrapetyan, et al. (CMS), Observation of quantum entanglement in top quark pair production in proton–proton collisions at √s = 13 TeV, Rept. Prog. Phys. 87 (2024) 117801. doi:doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ad7e4d. arXiv:2406.03976

    2024 arXiv

  8. [16]

    arXiv:2506.05499

    Probing QCD Confinement with Spin Entanglement (2025). arXiv:2506.05499. 6

    2025

  9. [17]

    Ablikim, et al

    M. Ablikim, et al. (BESIII), Probing CP symmetry and weak phases with entangled double-strange baryons, Nature 606 (2022) 64–69. doi:doi:10.1038/s41586-022-04624-1. arXiv:2105.11155

    2022

  10. [18]

    Ablikim, et al

    M. Ablikim, et al. (BESIII), Test of local realism via entangled Λ ¯Λ system (2025). arXiv:2505.14988

    2025

  11. [19]

    Shi, J.-C

    Y. Shi, J.-C. Yang, Entangled baryons: violation of Inequalities based on local realism assuming dependence of decays on hidden variables, Eur. Phys. J. C 80 (2020) 116. doi:doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7684-5. arXiv:1912.04111

    2020 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Qian, J.-L

    C. Qian, J.-L. Li, A. S. Khan, C.-F. Qiao, Nonlocal correlation of spin in high energy physics, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) 116004. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.101.116004. arXiv:2002.04283

    2020 arXiv

  13. [21]

    S. Wu, C. Qian, Y.-G. Yang, Q. Wang, Generalized Quantum Measurement in Spin-Correlated Hyperon-Antihyperon Decays, Chin. Phys. Lett. 41 (2024) 110301. doi:doi:10.1088/0256-307X/41/11/110301. arXiv:2402.16574

    2024 arXiv

  14. [22]

    N. Kwak, G. H. Mall, J. E. Manweiler, M. L. Nicholas, M. S. Redeker, T. A. Stringer, R. Stump, Spin correlations in pp → ΛΛ at 2.19 gev/c, Phys. Rev. 186 (1969) 1392–1394. URL: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.186.1392. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRev.186.1392

    1969 doi

  15. [23]

    N. A. Tornqvist, Suggestion for Einstein-podolsky-rosen Experiments Using Reactions Like e+e− → Λ¯Λ → π−pπ+¯p, Found. Phys. 11 (1981) 171–177. doi:doi:10.1007/BF00715204

    1981 doi

  16. [24]

    N. A. Tornqvist, The Decay J/ψ → Λ¯Λ →π−pπ+¯p as an Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Experiment, Phys. Lett. A 117 (1986) 1–4. doi:doi:10.1016/0375-9601(86)90225-2

    1986 doi

  17. [25]

    Agakishiev, et al

    G. Agakishiev, et al. (STAR), Strangeness Enhancement in Cu+Cu and Au+Au Collisions at √sN N = 200 GeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108 (2012) 072301. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.108.072301. arXiv:1107.2955

    2012 arXiv

  18. [26]

    B. B. Abelev, et al. (ALICE), K 0 S and Λ production in Pb-Pb collisions at √sN N = 2.76 TeV, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111 (2013) 222301. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.222301. arXiv:1307.5530

    2013 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Alicki, K

    R. Alicki, K. Lendi, Quantum Dynamical Semigroups and Applications, volume 717 of Lecture Notes in Physics , 2nd ed., Springer, 2007

    2007

  20. [28]

    Rivas, S

    A. Rivas, S. F. Huelga, Open Quantum Systems: An Introduction, Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 2012. URL: http://dx. doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23354-8 . doi:doi:10.1007/978-3-642-23354-8

    2012 doi

  21. [29]

    C. W. Gardiner, P. Zoller, Quantum Noise, 3rd ed., Springer, 2004

    2004

  22. [30]

    Benatti, R

    F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, Non-standard Neutral Kaon Dynamics from Infinite Statistics, Annals Phys. 273 (1999) 58–71. doi:doi:10.1006/aphy.1998.5896. arXiv:hep-th/9811196

    1999

  23. [31]

    Benatti, R

    F. Benatti, R. Floreanini, S. Marcantoni, P. Pinotti, K. Zimmermann, Bound on dissipative effects from semileptonic neutral B-meson decays, Eur. Phys. J. C 77 (2017) 651. doi:doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5242-6. arXiv:1709.07313

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Bassi, K

    A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh, H. Ulbricht, Models of Wave-function Collapse, Underlying Theories, and Experimental Tests, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85 (2013) 471–527. doi:doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.85.471. arXiv:1204.4325

    2013 arXiv

  25. [33]

    G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, T. Weber, A Unified Dynamics for Micro and MACRO Systems, Phys. Rev. D 34 (1986) 470. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.470

    1986 doi

  26. [34]

    P. M. Pearle, Combining Stochastic Dynamical State Vector Reduction With Spontaneous Localization, Phys. Rev. A 39 (1989) 2277–2289. doi:doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.39.2277

    1989 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.