Abstract
The collapse of the wavefunction is arguably the least understood process in quantum mechanics. A plethora of ideas—macro-micro divide, many worlds and even consciousness—have been put forth to resolve the issue. Contrary to the standard Copenhagen interpretation, objective collapse models modify the Schrödinger equation with nonlinear and stochastic terms in order to explain the collapse of the wavefunction. In this paper we propose a collapse model in which a particle’s wavefunction has a possibility of collapsing when it interacts with macroscopic objects, without the intervention of a conscious observer. We propose four possible conditions of collapse of the wavefunction and make testable predictions which differ from standard quantum mechanics.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Schrödinger, E.: Die gegenwärtige situation in der quantenmechanik. Naturwissenschaften 23(50), 844–849 (1935)
Bell, J.: Against ‘measurement’. Phys. World 3(8), 33 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1088/2058-7058/3/8/26
Leggett, A.: The quantum measurement problem. Science 307(5711), 871–872 (2005)
Weinberg, S.: The trouble with quantum mechanics. NY Rev. Books 19, 1–7 (2017)
David Mermin, N.: What’s wrong with this pillow? Phys. Today 42(4), 9–11 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1063/1.2810963
Dewitt, B.S., Graham, N. (eds.): The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1973). https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400868056
Trimmer, J.D.: The present situation in quantum mechanics: a translation of Schrödinger’s cat paradox paper. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 124(5), 323–338 (1980)
Bassi, A., Lochan, K., Satin, S., Singh, T.P., Ulbricht, H.: Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests. Rev. Mod. Phys. 85(2), 471 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.471
Milburn, G.: Intrinsic decoherence in quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. A 44(9), 5401 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.44.5401
Benatti, F., Ghirardi, G.C., Rimini, A., Weber, T.: Operations involving momentum variables in non-Hamiltonian evolution equations. Il Nuovo Cimento B 101(3), 333–355 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02828713
Bassi, A., Ippoliti, E.: Numerical analysis of a spontaneous collapse model for a two-level system. Phys. Rev. A 69(1), 012105 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.69.012105
Ghirardi, G.C., Rimini, A., Weber, T.: Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Phys. Rev. D 34(2), 470 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.34.470
Ghirardi, G.C., Pearle, P., Rimini, A.: Markov processes in Hilbert space and continuous spontaneous localization of systems of identical particles. Phys. Rev. A 42(1), 78 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.42.78
Molenaar, J., de Weger, J.G., van de Water, W.: Mappings of grazing-impact oscillators. Nonlinearity 14(2), 301 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1088/0951-7715/14/2/307
Kundu, S., Banerjee, S., Ing, J., Pavlovskaia, E., Wiercigroch, M.: Singularities in soft-impacting systems. Physica D 241(5), 553–565 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physd.2011.11.014
Di Bernardo, M., Budd, C.J., Champneys, A.R., Kowalczyk, P., Nordmark, A.B., Tost, G.O., Piiroinen, P.T.: Bifurcations in nonsmooth dynamical systems. SIAM Rev. 50(4), 629–701 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1137/050625060
van de Water, W., Molenaar, J.: Dynamics of vibrating atomic force microscopy. Nanotechnology 11(3), 192 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/11/3/310
Jamitzky, F., Stark, M., Bunk, W., Heckl, W.M., Stark, R.W.: Chaos in dynamic atomic force microscopy. Nanotechnology 17(7), 213 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-4484/17/7/S19
Raman, A., Melcher, J., Tung, R.: Cantilever dynamics in atomic force microscopy. Nano Today 3(1), 20–27 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1016/S1748-0132(08)70012-4
Hu, S., Raman, A.: Chaos in atomic force microscopy. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 036107 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.036107
Yan, L., Zhang, J.-Q., Zhang, S., Feng, M.: Fast optical cooling of a nanomechanical cantilever by a dynamical stark-shift gate. Sci. Rep. 5(1), 14977 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1038/srep14977
Kleckner, D., Pikovski, I., Jeffrey, E., Ament, L., Eliel, E., van den Brink, J., Bouwmeester, D.: Creating and verifying a quantum superposition in a micro-optomechanical system. New J. Phys. 10(9), 095020 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1088/1367-2630/10/9/095020
Joshi, C., Hutter, A., Zimmer, F.E., Jonson, M., Andersson, E., Öhberg, P.: Quantum entanglement of nanocantilevers. Phys. Rev. A 82, 043846 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.82.043846
Bennett, S.D., Cockins, L., Miyahara, Y., Grütter, P., Clerk, A.A.: Strong electromechanical coupling of an atomic force microscope cantilever to a quantum dot. Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 017203 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.017203
Funding
AA and PJ acknowledge the financial support from Institute Fellowship of IISER Kolkata. SB acknowledges the J C Bose National Fellowship provided by Science and Engineering Research Board, Government of India, Grant No. JBR/2020/000049.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
All authors, especially SB, contributed to the conceptualization of the work. Computer simulations were performed by PJ and AA. AA performed the calculations and contributed the illustrations. All authors took part in manuscript preparation.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial or non-financial interests that could have influenced the submitted work.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Supplementary file1 (MP4 329 kb)
Supplementary file2 (MP4 2321 kb)
Appendix A Numerical Methods
Appendix A Numerical Methods
We numerically solve the time-dependent Schrödinger equation for this system using the finite difference method by discretizing the range \([-30,30]\) of the position basis into 1,500 segments. We make this choice after checking that the wavefunction does not have appreciable magnitude beyond \(x=\pm 30\). We construct the Hamiltonian matrix using the 8-th order central difference formula for the kinetic energy operator. The eigenvalues and eigenvectors of this matrix are computed using standard routines. The initial wavefunction is then decomposed into its components along the eigenvectors. The time-evolution is then trivial to compute
For practical purposes, the infinite series is truncated at a cut-off energy such that the error is below machine precision. The first 150 eigenfunctions was found to be sufficient. We start from an initial wavefunction, which is a Gaussian wave-packet centered at \(x=-5.0\), and standard deviation 1.0. This initial state corresponds, in the classical picture, to releasing the mass from the point \(x=-5.0\), which would subsequently graze the wall located at \(x=5.0\). The other parameters are taken as \(m=1\), \(k_1=1\), \(k_2=10\). All quantities in this work are in units where \(\hbar =1\).
For the first and third collapse postulates, the value of r is taken as 0.5. The post-collapse wavefunction is supposed to be an eigenfunction of the position operator, i.e., a delta function. However, the numerical routine would not work with such discontinuous functions. So we consider the post-collapse wavefunction to be a narrow Gaussian function of standard deviation 0.25 (Fig. 4). At the instant of collapse, the wavefunction is replaced with the collapsed wavefunction at the position dictated by the respective postulate. This is then decomposed into the energy eigenfunctions and its evolution is calculated using equation A1. The parameter values are taken as: mass of the quantum particle \(m = 1\), spring constant of the spring attached to the mass \(k_{1} = 1\), the spring constant corresponding to the soft wall \(k_{2}=10\), time step \(\delta t=0.1\). We calculate for a total number of 10,000 timesteps. In the case of the classical ensemble, 10,000 particles are initialized with zero velocity and positions drawn from a normal distribution with mean \(-5\) and standard deviation 1. The dynamics is simulated using the classical equations of motion and integrated using the Runge–Kutta-Fehlberg method.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Acharya, A., Jeware, P. & Banerjee, S. Objective Collapse Induced by a Macroscopic Object. Found Phys 53, 68 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-023-00709-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-023-00709-7