2 ms·

I have a PhD in theoretical quantum optics and I can assure you that it absolutely was (and still is) a mainstream explanation EDIT: I misread the article, I t

I have a PhD in theoretical quantum optics and I can assure you that it absolutely was (and still is) a mainstream explanation EDIT: I misread the article, I thought it was about whether collapse occurs in general, not about physical explanations for collapse

lupire 4y ago
Please explain the mistake in the article. > The experiments find no evidence of the effects predicted by at least the simplest varieties of these collapse models.
- bowsamic 4y ago
  I have no idea, sorry
- pfortuny 4y ago
  No, the mistake is in the natural interpretation of the title. The title seems to imply "collapse is not a thing", whereas the article is about "these explanations of collapse do not hold".
pfortuny 4y ago
Yep: the article seems to say "there is no collapse" (in the title) but then it turns out to say "collapse as explained by these models may not be". Two very different things. I was caught as you by the title.
- gus_massa 4y ago
  I was initially confused too.