Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 43 references

Atomic correlation effects in collapse-induced spontaneous radiation

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Atomic distances now set collapse-model x-ray spectra.

desk verdict Useful new RDF-based framework for collapse-induced radiation, but Eq. (39) double-counts electron pairs and the central E→0 cancellation is not justified as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07205 v1 pith:Z2YWO4NR submitted 2026-08-07 quant-ph

Simone Manti , Nicola Bortolotti , Lajos Diósi , Kristian Piscicchia , Catalina Curceanu This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-ph
keywords collapsemodelsspontaneousradiationradialdistributionfunctionsCSLmodelDiósi–Penroseatomiccorrelationsintraculeintegralsx-rayemissionconstraints
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

Collapse models predict that the stochastic noise responsible for wavefunction localization also shakes charged particles, producing spontaneous radiation that experiments search for in ultra-low-background setups. This paper derives a general formula for that emission rate for an arbitrary noise field, in which the atomic contribution is encoded entirely in radial distribution functions of the emitters—nucleus–electron and electron–electron distance densities—while the collapse model enters only through a spatial modulation kernel. Applied to germanium and xenon, the formula reproduces the familiar 1/E scaling at high energies, stays below 1/E in the 1–100 keV region, and removes the artificial oscillations of earlier clamped-electron treatments. For neutral atoms the rate automatically vanishes at zero energy, a cancellation that follows from charge neutrality and the normalization of the RDFs.

What carries the argument

The machinery has three parts. First, a semiclassical derivation from the stochastic potential correlations $C(r,\omega)$ leads to the pair-sum rate (24), proportional to $(\sin kr/kr)(-\nabla^2 C)$. Factoring $C$ into spatial and temporal parts defines the model-dependent kernel $f(r) = (1/6\pi^2\epsilon_0 c^3)(-\nabla^2 D(r))$—Gaussian for CSL, Gaussian-like with different prefactor for Diósi–Penrose—and the white-noise rate (27). Second, the atomic structure is lifted into two total radial distribution functions: $R(r)$ for nucleus–electron distances and $P(r)$ for electron–electron distances, with normalizations $\int R = N_e$ and $\int P = N_e(N_e-1)$. Third, the electron–electron RDF is built from orbital wavefunctions via the product approximation $\rho_{\alpha\beta}(r_1,r_2) \approx \rho_\alpha(r_1)\rho_\beta(r_2)$, expanded into angular and radial intracule integrals with 3j-symbol angular factors and Legendre-polynomial radial integrals. The paper benchmarks this implementation against analytic hydrogenic results and published Si/Ar intracule data.

What would settle it

Compute the electron–electron RDF $P(r)$ for xenon with a correlated many-body method (e.g., configuration interaction) and re-evaluate Eq. (35) at photon energies 1–100 keV; if the resulting rate deviates from the product-approximation prediction by more than the percent-level relativistic correction quoted in the paper, the central cancellation mechanism is not robust. A direct experiment would measure the x-ray spectrum of a high-purity Ge or Xe detector in an ultra-low-background setup: the RDF model predicts a smooth rate always below $(N_P^2+N_e)/E$, while the clamped-electron model of Ref. [27] predicts oscillations above it.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central result is Eq. (35): $d\Gamma/dE = (1/E)[N_P^2 + N_e - 2N_P R(k) + P(k)]$, where $N_P$ and $N_e$ are the numbers of protons and electrons, and $R(k)$ and $P(k)$ are the collapse-kernel-modulated sine transforms of the nucleus–electron and electron–electron radial distribution functions, Eqs. (36)–(37). The first bracket reproduces the known incoherent $(N_P^2+N_e)/E$ behaviour; the two additional terms are the finite-size correlation corrections. When the collapse kernel $f(r)$ is constant on atomic scales, as in CSL with its $10^3$ Å correlation length, the normalizations (34) force the rate to vanish as $E\to0$ for any neutral atom, giving a parameter-free cancellation. For Ge and Xe, the RDF-based rate remains consistently below the $1/E$ asymptote, whereas the clamped-electron approximation of Ref. [27] develops oscillations that exceed it. The authors take this as evidence that realistic radial densities distribute the spectral weight more smoothly and yield a more physical low-energy spectrum.

Load-bearing premise

The quantitative predictions stand on the product approximation for the two-electron density, which ignores exchange and Coulomb correlation in the short-range electron pair distribution; if that approximation is inaccurate, or if the normalization factor 2 in Eq. (39) is inconsistent with $\int P = N_e(N_e-1)$, the correlation terms $P(k)$ and hence the predicted rates change. A second load-bearing premise is the isolated-atom treatment, which neglects interatomic correlations and is asserted, not demonstrated, to be subleading in the 1–100 keV window.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At high energies the sinc factors oscillate rapidly and average out, so the general formula automatically returns the established $(N_P^2+N_e)/E$ scaling used in past bounds.
  • The $E\to0$ cancellation, a corollary of charge neutrality and the RDF normalizations, turns the low-energy CSL rate off completely for neutral atoms, sharpening the energy window where constraints apply.
  • Because the DP kernel $f(r)$ varies over atomic distances while the CSL kernel is essentially flat, the spectral shapes differ measurably, so the 1–100 keV window can discriminate between the two models.
  • The smoother RDF-based spectrum removes the unphysical oscillations of clamped-electron models, giving experiment a monotone, material-dependent prediction to test against.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension is to molecules and condensed phases: the same pair-sum formula would incorporate intermolecular RDFs at lower energies, where the isolated-atom premise may fail—this is testable by including a liquid-xenon structure factor.
  • The product approximation's short-range error could be probed by comparing with explicitly correlated wavefunctions for small atoms first; if exchange corrections alter $P(k)$ at $k$ corresponding to 1–10 keV, the low-energy downturn will shift.
  • The vanishing at $E=0$ has the flavour of a sum rule; if it holds beyond the semiclassical derivation, the fully quantum treatment should also exhibit it, which would make the low-energy rate shape a robust test of mass-proportional collapse.
  • Since the rate is proportional to $Z$ and $Z^2$ terms with cancellations, high-$Z$ targets like Xe emphasize the correlation terms; scanning targets across a range of $Z$ would isolate the $R(k)$ and $P(k)$ contributions experimentally.
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

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript derives a general semiclassical expression for the spontaneous photon emission rate induced by collapse noise, valid for arbitrary (factorizable) noise correlations, and reformulates it in terms of radial distribution functions (RDFs). The central formula, Eq. (35), gives dΓ/dE = (1/E)[N_P² + N_e − 2N_P R(k) + P(k)], where R(k) and P(k) are collapse-kernel-modulated sinc transforms of the nuclear–electron and electron–electron RDFs. Electron RDFs are obtained from DFT (GPAW) orbitals within a product approximation for the two-particle density, decomposed over shells and benchmarked against hydrogenic analytical results and literature intracule data for Si and Ar. Rates are evaluated for Ge and Xe for the CSL and DP models, for white and colored noise. The main physical results are that the CSL rate for neutral atoms vanishes as E→0 due to charge-correlation cancellation, that the RDF-based rates stay below the 1/E asymptote, and that unphysical oscillations of the earlier clamped-electron approximation (Ref. [27]) are washed out by realistic radial densities. I confirm that the derivation from Eq. (14) to Eq. (24) is internally consistent and that the stress-test concern about the normalization of P(r) lands: the factor-of-two mismatch between Eqs. (39) and (34) is real and is load-bearing for the paper's central claims.

Significance. If the normalization issues are resolved, the paper offers a clean separation between model-dependent content (the kernel f(r)) and atomic-structure content (the RDFs), with concrete Ge and Xe predictions that are directly relevant to the VIP, MAJORANA, and XENONnT analyses. The derivation is internally consistent; the recovery of the 1/E asymptote at high energies and the E→0 cancellation for neutral atoms provide two physically meaningful checks; and the manuscript ships public code plus benchmarks (hydrogenic analytic case, Si/Ar Hartree–Fock intracule data, and a relativistic-sensitivity test). The falsifiable qualitative predictions — the CSL E→0 cancellation and the suppression of clamped-electron oscillations — are genuinely useful for model discrimination. The significance is currently capped by two issues: as printed, the electron–electron RDF normalization is inconsistent by a factor of two, which directly affects Eq. (47) and Fig. 5, and the quantitative claims of the Abstract ('more robust, material-dependent experimental constraints') rest on two approximations whose rate-level impact is asserted but not quantified.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. III, Eqs. (34), (39), and Sec. IV, Eqs. (46)–(47)] The normalization of the electron–electron RDF is inconsistent by a factor of two as printed. Eq. (39) defines P(r) = 2 Σ_αβ n_α(n_β − δ_αβ) P_αβ(r), with P_αβ(r) normalized to unity (the benchmark in Fig. 1 and Eq. (45) has ∫P_1s,1s dr = 1). The double sum Σ_αβ n_α(n_β − δ_αβ) equals N_e(N_e − 1), so Eq. (39) integrates to 2N_e(N_e − 1), contradicting the ordered-pair normalization ∫P dr = N_e(N_e − 1) stated in Eq. (34). Inserting the printed normalization into Eq. (35) removes the E→0 cancellation claimed in Eq. (47): for a neutral atom the limit becomes (1/E)[Z² + Z − 2Z² + 2Z(Z − 1)] = Z(Z − 1)/E ≠ 0, and the finite-energy spectra of Fig. 5 and the claim that the RDF rate 'remains consistently below the 1/E limit' would be shifted by the same ambiguity. The manuscript must reconcile Eqs. (39) and (34), report the numerically computed ∫P(r)dr for Ge, Xe, and the Si/Ar benchmarks of Fig. 2, and re-verify Eq. (47) and Fig. 5 with the corrected factor or with an explicitly justified convention. If the public code internally renormalizes P(r) to satisfy Eq. (34), this must be stated, because Eq. (39) would then not be the implemented formula.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (35)–(47)] The E→0 argument also requires an explicit normalization convention for the kernel f(r), independently of the factor-of-two issue. In Eq. (35) the contact terms N_P² and N_e originate from δ(r)-peaked pair distributions and therefore carry a factor f(0) (see Eqs. (30) and (32)), whereas the transforms R(k) and P(k) in Eqs. (36)–(37) carry the full f(r). The sentence near Eq. (46) stating that the cancellation 'corresponds to the absence of spatial modulation between emitter pairs, namely f(r) = 1' conflates the E→0 limit of the sinc factor, sin(kr)/(kr) → 1, with a normalization of f. As printed, the limit in Eq. (46) is (1/E)[N_P² + N_e − 2N_P f(0)N_e + f(0)∫P dr], which vanishes for a neutral atom only if ∫P dr = N_e(N_e − 1) and f(0) = 1. Please state explicitly that all rates, and the 1/E comparison curves in Fig. 5, are normalized by f(0), and re-derive Eqs. (46)–(47) under that convention.
  3. [Sec. III–IV (product approximation, Eq. (40); isolated-atom approximation)] The two approximations entering the quantitative Ge/Xe predictions are asserted to be subleading but are not quantified at the level of the rate. (i) The product approximation in Eq. (40) neglects exchange and Coulomb correlations; the Si/Ar comparison in Fig. 2 validates the first moment of P(r) at the 1% level, but the quantity entering the rate is the modulated transform P(k) of Eq. (37), which at intermediate energies is sensitive to the short-range part of P(r) where exchange corrections concentrate. I request a rate-level comparison: compute dΓ/dE for Si and Ar using the DFT-product P(r) and, alternatively, the Hartree–Fock intracule data of Ref. [39], and report the resulting difference in the rate curves. (ii) The isolated-atom approximation neglects interatomic correlations, which are non-negligible at the low-energy end of the claimed 1–100 keV range: at E = 1 keV, k ≈ 0.51 Å⁻¹, so nearest-neighbor separations in crystalline Ge (2.45 Å) and liquid Xe (about 4.4 Å) contribute sinc factors of order 0.3–0.8. A quantitative estimate, for instance using static structure factors for Ge and liquid Xe, is needed to support the claim that these effects are subleading and to justify the Abstract's statement of 'more robust, material-dependent experimental constraints.'
minor comments (8)
  1. [Eq. (26), CSL branch] Evaluating −∇²D(r) from Eq. (3a) gives a prefactor proportional to ℏ²λ/(m₀²σ²)(1 − r²/6σ²)e^{−r²/4σ²}, whereas Eq. (26) prints σ³ in the denominator; please verify whether this is a typo or a different normalization of D_CSL than the one in Eq. (3a).
  2. [Eq. (42)] As printed, L_α = √(l_α/4π) vanishes for s-shells (l_α = 0), which would make G^(ℓ)_αβ = 0 for the 1s–1s contribution and contradict the successful benchmark in Fig. 1; the definition is presumably √((2l_α+1)/4π) and should be corrected.
  3. [Fig. 5] The comparison of the RDF, 1/E, and Ref. [27] curves is made in arbitrary units; please state the normalization convention (for example, a common value at a reference energy, or normalization by f(0)) so that the claims 'consistently below the 1/E limit' and the cRDF curves are well defined.
  4. [Near Eq. (40)] Please state explicitly the normalization of the shell pair density (∫P_αβ(r)dr = 1 in the present implementation) so that the counting in Eq. (39) can be checked directly and unambiguously.
  5. [After Eq. (38)] Please clarify whether the Kohn–Sham densities ρ_α(r) entering Eqs. (38)–(40) are spherically averaged; this matters for the interpretation of R(r) and P(r) as radial distributions.
  6. [Introduction, first paragraph] The sentence ending '...or an effective description [3] Spontaneous collapse models...' is missing a period after the citation [3].
  7. [Sec. II, Eq. (28)] Equation (28) uses a Lorentzian spectral factor for exponentially decaying time correlations; the Abstract's 'arbitrary noise' claim is therefore restricted to noises with factorized spatial/temporal structure and exponentially correlated temporal dependence, and this limitation should be stated where the generality claim is made.
  8. [Data Availability Statement] The Data Availability statement notes that 'embargo periods may apply'; please indicate the expected release date for the data underlying Fig. 5, since the public code and data together are central to the reproducibility claims.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: RDF inputs are externally benchmarked and the E→0 cancellation is a normalization identity, not a fitted result.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Equation (35) is obtained from the semiclassical radiation formula (27) plus the RDF definitions (33)-(37); the atomic inputs R(r) and P(r) are computed from DFT wavefunctions (GPAW) and benchmarked against an analytical hydrogenic intracule and literature Si/Ar data, not fitted to collapse data. The E→0 cancellation in Eq. (47) is an exact normalization identity: with ∫R=N_e and ∫P=N_e(N_e−1), the bracket becomes (N_P−N_e)^2, which vanishes for neutral atoms. This is a consistency property of the pair-counting conventions, not a fitted prediction, and the finite-energy spectra still carry independent content from the computed RDF shapes and the model kernel f(r). The self-citations to Refs. [27] and [31] are used for historical comparison, for the clamped-electron benchmark, and for the standard CSL/DP spatial correlations; they are not invoked as a uniqueness theorem and do not bear the derivation. A separate correctness caveat: Eq. (39) with the leading factor 2 appears to integrate to 2N_e(N_e−1), not N_e(N_e−1), as required by Eq. (34), which could affect the rates and the claimed E→0 cancellation; this is a normalization/implementation concern, not evidence of circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced. The collapse noise field is a pre-existing ingredient of CSL and DP. The only free knob added by this paper is the illustrative cutoff E_c; collapse parameters lambda and sigma are taken from prior literature. The main ad hoc element is the product approximation for the two-electron density.

free parameters (1)
  • colored-noise cutoff energy E_c = 10 keV
    Set in Sec. IV to match the Ref. [27] benchmark; it shapes the colored-noise rate via Eq. (28) but is not fitted to data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Collapse dynamics follow the stochastic Schrödinger equation with mass-proportional coupling to a classical noise field, Eq. (1).
    Defines the class of collapse models (CSL and DP) under study; introduced in Sec. II.
  • domain assumption The noise correlation factorizes into spatial and temporal parts, C(r,t) = D(r)G(t), with D given by Eq. (3) for CSL and DP.
    Used to define f(r) in Eq. (25) and to apply the colored-noise factor in Eq. (28).
  • domain assumption The semiclassical Larmor radiation formula, Eq. (14), is equivalent to a full quantum treatment for energies above 1 keV.
    Invoked in Sec. II with a citation to Ref. [32]; needed to compute power from classical accelerations.
  • domain assumption Emitter separations are isotropically distributed, justifying the angular average in Eq. (23).
    Used to reduce the rate to the radial form Eq. (24) with sinc(kr).
  • ad hoc to paper The two-particle electron density factorizes into a product of single-particle densities, Eq. (40).
    Explicit approximation in Sec. III; exchange and Coulomb correlations are neglected without quantified error.
  • domain assumption Interatomic correlations in solid Ge and liquid Xe are subleading in the 1-100 keV range; the atom can be treated as isolated.
    Stated in Sec. III as an assumption, with future extension promised; most fragile at the low-energy end.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Atomic correlation effects in collapse-induced spontaneous radiation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/Z2YWO4NR

@misc{pith2026260807205,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Atomic correlation effects in collapse-induced spontaneous radiation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/Z2YWO4NR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07205}
}
read the original abstract

Collapse models introduce stochastic and nonlinear modifications in the quantum dynamics, predicting observable effects, such as spontaneous radiation from charged particles, which can be used to constrain their parameters. Recently, attention has focused on the 1-100 keV energy range, where the wavelength of the emitted photons becomes comparable to atomic dimensions, making the emission sensitive to atomic structure and leading to model-dependent behaviors that enable their discrimination. Here, we derive a general expression for the spontaneous emission rate for arbitrary noise, providing a framework that systematically incorporates the atomic structure through the radial distribution of the emitters, modulated by the specific collapse model. The formalism recovers previous results in the appropriate limits and naturally includes new low-energy effects, such as cancellation mechanisms arising from charge correlations. We evaluate the rates for germanium and xenon within the Di\'osi-Penrose and Continuous Spontaneous Localization models, showing how these correlations modify the predicted emission rates. This approach provides a unified framework to account for atomic effects and enables more robust, material-dependent experimental constraints on collapse model parameters.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07205 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Electron radial distribution function (a) for two 1s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Modulation function f(rij ) as a function of the emitters distance rij for DP model, with values σDP = 0.54 ˚A [24] (green) and σDP = 4.94 ˚A [42] (orange), and CSL with σCSL = 103 ˚A [22] (red). quences on the spontaneous collapse emission rate. Since the two models probe atomic length scales differently, this leads to distinct low-energy limits. In the CSL case, a cancellation effect emerges as E → 0, as first dis… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Nuclear-electron R(r) (a) and electron-electron P(r) (b) RDFs for Ge (blue) and Xe (orange) as functions of the interparticle distance r. ing nonrelativistic wavefunctions in the radial integrals of Eqs. (43). Owing to the relatively large atomic num￾bers of these elements, especially Xe, we assessed the sensitivity of the RDFs to relativistic effects by compar￾ing with calculations based on relativistic wavefunctio… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Emission rates for Ge (a) and (c) and Xe (b) and (d) in the 1-100 keV range. The (a) and (b) panels show the RDF [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Sensitivity of the RDFs to relativistic effects in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 40 canonical work pages

  1. [27]

    Aprile and XENON Collaboration, The European Physical Journal C84, 784 (2024)

    E. Aprile and XENON Collaboration, The European Physical Journal C84, 784 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [39]

    Calais and P.-O

    J.-L. Calais and P.-O. L¨ owdin, Journal of Molecular Spectroscopy8, 203 (1962)

    work page 1962

  3. [2]

    Bassi, K

    A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh, and H. Ul- bricht, Reviews of Modern Physics85, 471 (2013)

    2013

  4. [3]

    Schlosshauer, Reviews of Modern Physics76, 1267 (2005)

    M. Schlosshauer, Reviews of Modern Physics76, 1267 (2005)

    work page 2005

  5. [4]

    Bassi and H

    A. Bassi and H. Ulbricht, Journal of Physics: Conference Series504, 012023 (2014)

    work page 2014

  6. [5]

    G. C. Ghirardi, Physical Review D34, 470 (1986)

    work page 1986

  7. [6]

    Pearle, J

    P. Pearle, J. Ring, J. I. Collar, and F. T. Avignone III, Foundations of physics29, 465 (1999)

    work page 1999

  8. [7]

    Di´ osi, Physical Review A40, 1165 (1989)

    L. Di´ osi, Physical Review A40, 1165 (1989)

    work page 1989

Show all 43 references
  1. [8]

    Di´ osi, Physics Letters A105, 199 (1984)

    L. Di´ osi, Physics Letters A105, 199 (1984)

    1984

  2. [9]

    Penrose, General Relativity and Gravitation28, 581 (1996)

    R. Penrose, General Relativity and Gravitation28, 581 (1996)

    1996

  3. [10]

    Karolyhazy, Il Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970)42, 390 (1966)

    F. Karolyhazy, Il Nuovo Cimento A (1965-1970)42, 390 (1966)

    1966

  4. [11]

    Bortolotti, K

    N. Bortolotti, K. Piscicchia, A. Porcelli, M. Laubenstein, S. Manti, A. Marcian` o, F. Nola, and C. Curceanu, New 10 Journal of Physics28, 064511 (2026)

    2026

  5. [12]

    Figurato, A

    L. Figurato, A. Bassi, and S. Donadi, New Journal of Physics26, 013001 (2024)

    2024

  6. [13]

    Feldmann and R

    W. Feldmann and R. Tumulka, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical45, 065304 (2012)

    2012

  7. [14]

    Nimmrichter, K

    S. Nimmrichter, K. Hornberger, P. Haslinger, and M. Arndt, Physical Review A83, 043621 (2011)

    2011

  8. [15]

    S. L. Adler and A. Vinante, Physical Review A97, 052119 (2018)

    2018

  9. [16]

    Vinante, M

    A. Vinante, M. Bahrami, A. Bassi, O. Usenko, G. Wijts, and T. Oosterkamp, Physical Review Letters116, 090402 (2016)

    2016

  10. [17]

    Carlesso, A

    M. Carlesso, A. Vinante, and A. Bassi, Physical Review A98, 022122 (2018)

    2018

  11. [18]

    Carlesso, S

    M. Carlesso, S. Donadi, L. Ferialdi, M. Paternostro, H. Ulbricht, and A. Bassi, Nature Physics18, 243 (2022)

    2022

  12. [19]

    Fu, Physical Review A56, 1806 (1997)

    Q. Fu, Physical Review A56, 1806 (1997)

    1997

  13. [20]

    Bassi and D

    A. Bassi and D. D¨ urr, Journal of Physics A: Mathemat- ical and Theoretical42, 485302 (2009)

    2009

  14. [21]

    S. L. Adler, A. Bassi, and S. Donadi, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical46, 245304 (2013)

    2013

  15. [22]

    Piscicchia, A

    K. Piscicchia, A. Bassi, C. Curceanu, R. D. Grande, S. Donadi, B. C. Hiesmayr, and A. Pichler, Entropy19, 10.3390/e19070319 (2017)

    2017 doi

  16. [23]

    Donadi, K

    S. Donadi, K. Piscicchia, R. Del Grande, C. Curceanu, M. Laubenstein, and A. Bassi, The European Physical Journal C81, 1 (2021)

    2021

  17. [24]

    Frontline

    (green) andσ DP = 4.94 ˚A [42] (orange), and CSL with σCSL = 103 ˚A [22] (red). quences on the spontaneous collapse emission rate. Since the two models probe atomic length scales differently, this leads to distinct low-energy limits. In the CSL case, a cancellation effect emer...

    2000

  18. [25]

    Donadi, K

    S. Donadi, K. Piscicchia, C. Curceanu, L. Di´ osi, M. Laubenstein, and A. Bassi, Nature Physics17, 74 (2021), tex.copyright: 2020 The Author(s), under exclu- sive licence to Springer Nature Limited

    2021

  19. [26]

    Abgrall, E

    N. Abgrall, E. Aguayo, F. Avignone III, and others, Ad- vances in High Energy Physics2014, 365432 (2014)

    2014

  20. [28]

    Piscicchia, S

    K. Piscicchia, S. Donadi, S. Manti, A. Bassi, M. Der- akhshani, L. Di´ osi, and C. Curceanu, Physical Review Letters132, 250203 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Aprile, J

    XENON Collaboration, E. Aprile, J. Aalbers, K. Abe, D. Ant´ on Martin, and a. et, Physical Review Letters136, 120201 (2026)

    2026

  22. [30]

    L. S. Bartell and R. M. Gavin, Journal of the American Chemical Society86, 3493 (1964)

    1964

  23. [31]

    Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

    G. Lindblad, Communications in Mathematical Physics 48, 119 (1976)

    1976

  24. [32]

    Bortolotti, C

    N. Bortolotti, C. Curceanu, L. Di´ osi, S. Manti, and K. Piscicchia, Physical Review Research7, 043166 (2025)

    2025

  25. [33]

    S. L. Adler, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and The- oretical40, 2935 (2007)

    2007

  26. [34]

    Hansen and I

    J.-P. Hansen and I. R. McDonald,Theory of Simple Liq- uids: with Applications to Soft Matter(Academic Press,

  27. [35]

    J. J. Mortensen, A. H. Larsen, M. Kuisma, A. V. Ivanov, A. Taghizadeh, and et al., The Journal of Chemical Physics160, 092503 (2024)

    2024

  28. [36]

    A. W. King, L. C. Rhodes, and H. Cox, Physical Review A93, 022509 (2016)

    2016

  29. [37]

    C. A. Coulson and A. H. Neilson, Proceedings of the Physical Society78, 831 (1961)

    1961

  30. [38]

    Benesch, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 6, 181 (1972), tex.copyright: Copyright©1972 John Wiley & Sons, Inc

    R. Benesch, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry 6, 181 (1972), tex.copyright: Copyright©1972 John Wiley & Sons, Inc

    1972

  31. [40]

    Quantum Chemistry at ANU - Atomic Intracules

  32. [41]

    R. J. Boyd and C. A. Coulson, Journal of Physics B: Atomic and Molecular Physics6, 782 (1973)

    1973

  33. [42]

    P. M. Gill, D. P. O’Neill, and N. A. Besley, Theoretical Chemistry Accounts109, 241 (2003)

    2003

  34. [43]

    Majorana Collaboration, I. J. Arnquist, F. T. Avignone, A. S. Barabash, C. J. Barton, K. H. Bhimani, E. Blalock, B. Bos, M. Buuck, T. S. Caldwell, Y.-D. Chan, and et al., Physical Review Letters129, 080401 (2022)

    2022

  35. [2013]

    google-Books-ID: pbJfOUqZVSgC

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.