Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 25 references

Spontaneous Unitarity Violation and Quantum State Reduction

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims wave-function collapse emerges from spontaneously broken unitary time evolution, with Born's rule derived from nonlinear stochastic dynamics rather than being postulated.

desk verdict A philosophy-of-physics paper that imports the SUV machinery from others; its central no-fine-tuning claim is contradicted by the model's own G/J=1 and white-noise requirements, but the propensity/relativity synthesis is worth engaging. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02125 v1 pith:2FNEFLQN submitted 2025-01-03 quant-ph physics.hist-ph

Dakshansh Chawda This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phphysics.hist-ph
keywords spontaneousunitarityviolationquantumstatereductionBorn'srulemeasurementproblempropensityinterpretationsymmetrybreakingWignerfunctionobjectivecollapsetheories
topics The Measurement Problem
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 tries to establish that the quantum measurement problem dissolves if macroscopic collapse is treated as spontaneous symmetry breaking of unitary time evolution, not as an extra postulate. In the SUV framework, a tiny non-Hermitian perturbation coupled to an extensive order parameter makes large superpositions localise as the thermodynamic limit is approached, while microscopic systems stay effectively unitary. The paper further argues that Born's rule is emergent, arising in the white-noise limit of a nonlinear, stochastic collapse dynamics with ratio $G/J = 1$, and that this yields a propensity interpretation of quantum probabilities compatible with relativity. If correct, collapse, probability, and the preferred basis would all be emergent features rather than axioms, and classical statistical-mechanical probabilities would inherit their status from quantum dynamics via the Wigner function.

What carries the argument

The central object is the SUV Hamiltonian of Eq. (14), together with the nonlinear stochastic generator of Eq. (18) specialised to a two-state (Lieb-Mattis antiferromagnet) model. The non-Hermitian term $i\epsilon N\hat{G}$ breaks unitarity and time-translation symmetry, and its coupling to the extensive order parameter $N$ makes the perturbation dominate for large systems while leaving small systems effectively unitary. The singular-limit structure of Eqs. (16)--(17), with non-commuting thermodynamic and perturbation limits, carries the argument: it turns an infinitesimal perturbation into spontaneous, unavoidable collapse. Equation (19) and the Bloch-sphere flow then supply the mechanism by which nonlinearity ($J$) and stochastic noise ($G$) jointly select an outcome, with Born's rule recovered only at the white-noise limit $G/J = 1$.

What would settle it

Prepare a mesoscopic two-state superposition and apply a controlled stochastic field with a small but nonzero correlation time $\tau_t$; standard quantum mechanics predicts Born statistics independent of the noise correlation time, while SUV predicts deviations whenever $\tau_t > 0$. Observing exact Born statistics with colored noise, or finding that collapse times do not scale as $1/(N\epsilon)$ across system sizes, would settle the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the transition from superposition to a definite outcome is a dynamical phase transition: unitary time-translation symmetry is spontaneously broken by an infinitesimal non-Hermitian field $i\epsilon N\hat{G}$ coupled to an extensive order parameter of the measuring system. In the thermodynamic limit, the limits $N \to \infty$ and $\epsilon \to 0$ fail to commute, so any large system localises into a symmetry-broken pointer state while small systems follow standard Schr\"odinger evolution. Because the collapse dynamics is nonlinear and stochastic, measurement statistics are not imposed; Born's rule emerges exactly when the stochastic field becomes white noise ($\tau_t \to 0$) with relative coupling $G/J = 1$. The paper then reads this as a realist, propensity account of probability: single-case probabilities are objective tendencies of the system-environment configuration, local and relational rather than tied to a global flow of time, thereby removing Shanks's incompatibility between propensities and relativity. The author also shows, via a harmonic-crystal example, that the Wigner function's evolution reduces to a classical Liouville equation, which he interprets as evidence that statistical-mechanics probabilities are quantum in origin.

Load-bearing premise

The collapse conclusion assumes that the thermodynamic singular limit, which the paper says is never realised for a finite object, nevertheless governs real finite measuring devices, and that the physically implausible white-noise condition ($\tau_t \to 0$ with $G/J = 1$) is what nature realises.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Macroscopic measurement would no longer require a separate collapse postulate: the transition in Eq. (5) becomes the same kind of emergent phenomenon as spontaneous magnetisation.
  • Born's rule would be a derived result of the collapse dynamics, so its empirical success would not show that probability is a fundamental, irreducible feature of quantum mechanics.
  • The preferred-basis problem would be resolved: pointer bases arise as symmetry-broken ground states selected by the perturbation, rather than being inserted by hand.
  • Quantum probabilities would be objective single-case propensities that are local and context-dependent, making them compatible with relativistic spacetime and evading Shanks's block-universe objection.
  • Statistical-mechanical probabilities would inherit their foundation from quantum dynamics, with the Wigner-function calculation showing classical phase-space probabilities emerging from non-unitary quantum evolution in a harmonic crystal.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper itself admits the white-noise limit is implausible for real noise sources, a natural extension is to search for measurable Born-rule violations in mesoscopic superpositions when the noise correlation time is nonzero; finding exact Born statistics under colored noise would undercut the SUV mechanism.
  • The harmonic-crystal argument could be extended to anharmonic pinning potentials, where the quantum correction $Q(W)$ in Eq. (23) no longer vanishes; SUV would then predict small non-classical corrections to the phase-space flow that textbook decoherence does not.
  • The relational-propensity reading implies that the post-measurement state is fixed by the entire history of the stochastic field during collapse, not just the initial state; probing the state mid-collapse with a second perturbation could reveal whether outcome statistics depend on the noise trajectory.
  • A direct macroscopic signature would be the predicted scaling of collapse time with system size, $\tau_c \propto 1/(N\epsilon)$; measuring this scaling across mesoscopic systems of varying size would test whether SUV is the operative collapse mechanism.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper argues that models of spontaneous unitarity violation (SUV) resolve the quantum measurement problem and provide a new foundation for quantum probabilities. It reviews the SUV formalism, in which a small non-Hermitian, state-dependent perturbation breaks unitary time evolution spontaneously in the thermodynamic limit, and claims that collapse to a symmetry-broken pointer state, the preferred basis, and Born's rule all emerge without being added as axioms or fine-tuned parameters. The paper then develops philosophical consequences: an ontology of emergent collapse, a propensity interpretation of quantum probability compatible with relativity, and a statistical-mechanical account based on a Wigner-function analysis. The central positive claims are that SUV yields a derived Born rule and a dynamically grounded resolution of Shanks's incompatibility argument.

Significance. If the central claims were established, the paper would be significant for the foundations of quantum mechanics and philosophy of physics: it would turn collapse and Born probabilities into emergent, thermodynamically grounded phenomena, solve the preferred-basis problem, and reconcile the propensity interpretation with relativity. The paper also deserves credit for engaging candidly with the limitations of SUV models, especially in Sec. 5.4, and for drawing on a coherent body of prior work. However, the manuscript's most load-bearing assertions are not supported by the derivations it presents. The claimed emergence of Born's rule requires an exact coupling ratio and a white-noise limit that the paper itself describes as implausible and unjustified, and the Wigner-function section contains concrete mathematical errors in the evolution equation for non-Hermitian dynamics. These defects undermine the philosophical payoff of the paper as it stands.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.3, §5.4, §6] The central claim that Born's rule 'emerges in SUV models and is not added as an axiom or is not a result of fine-tuning of parameters' (Sec. 6) is contradicted by the model's own requirements. Section 3.3 states that for all nonzero correlation time Born's rule is not satisfied and that only the white-noise limit tau_t -> 0 with the specific ratio G/J = 1 reproduces the correct statistics and conserves them during collapse. Section 5.4 then concedes that the white-noise requirement is 'rather implausible' and that 'there is no justification or proof' for the stochastic nonunitary perturbation. Thus the derivation of Born statistics is conditional on an exact, physically unrealized limit and an exact coupling ratio, which is precisely a form of fine-tuning imposed on the model rather than an emergent property. Since the propensity interpretation and the resolution of Shanks's argument in Secs. 5.1 and 5.2 depend on this claimed emergence, the central philosophical conclusion is not established.
  2. [§5.3, Eq. (25)] Equation (25) contains a concrete index error. The quantum correction Q(W) in Eq. (24) involves derivatives of order 2n+1 for integer n, i.e., odd derivatives. For the quadratic potential U = i eps N (X_com - x0)^2, the only nonzero derivative is of order 2, which is even and therefore cannot appear in the sum. The displayed condition '2n+1 = 2' is impossible for integer n, and the conclusion that Q(W) = 0 is true only because all odd derivatives of order 3 and higher vanish, not because of the stated case. As written, the equation indicates a misindexing of the derivative order and prevents the reader from verifying the subsequent Wigner evolution.
  3. [§5.3, Eq. (22)] The density matrix is evolved with the von Neumann commutator equation, Eq. (22), although the Hamiltonian in Eq. (15) is non-Hermitian. For a non-Hermitian generator the correct evolution is i hbar d rho/dt = H rho - rho H^dagger, which contains an anti-commutator of the anti-Hermitian part with rho, not a commutator. Using the commutator with H_SUV produces an evolution that does not preserve Hermiticity in the standard way and leads to the imaginary coefficient in Eq. (26). Consequently, Eq. (26) and its classical counterpart Eq. (29) are not valid Liouville-type equations for a probability density, and the claimed bridge between SUV and statistical-mechanical probabilities via the Wigner function is not demonstrated.
  4. [§2.2, §3.2] The collapse mechanism is derived from the singular thermodynamic limits of Eqs. (16) and (17), but Sec. 2.2 explicitly states that these limits are 'never realised for a finite size object.' The paper nevertheless applies the conclusion to real, finite measurement apparatuses. No argument is given that approximate symmetry breaking in finite systems is sufficiently close to the singular limit for the claimed instantaneous collapse and the associated probability statements to hold for a realistic apparatus. This gap is load-bearing because the measurement problem concerns finite mesoscopic devices, not only the infinite-N idealization.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical and grammatical errors, including 'Dyanmical' (Sec. 3.2), 'puposes' (Sec. 2.2), 'the stochastic the final, post-measurement state' (Sec. 5.1), and 'quantam dynamics' in reference [25]. A careful proofreading pass is needed.
  2. [§5.3, Eq. (20)] The Wigner function is defined with an integral over d^3 y and a prefactor 1/h^3, but it is later applied to a one-dimensional center-of-mass problem without adjusting the normalization or clarifying the phase-space dimension.
  3. [§3.3 and §5.1] The notation for the stochastic field and the coupling constants is used inconsistently in places: Eq. (18) defines G as a coupling constant, while in Sec. 5.1 the text refers to ξ and G/J without restating the units or the domain of ξ; the explanatory equation η = cos^{-1} ξ also deserves a clearer statement of the relationship between η and the fixed point.
  4. [Figures] Figures 1-3 appear to be reproduced from [7] and [10], but the captions do not state that permission or attribution beyond the citation has been obtained, which is a publication-presentation concern for the journal.
  5. [§5.4] The final limitation bullet about redefining collapse in a global frame is only a sketch; since it concerns a potentially faster-than-light signaling problem, it deserves a fuller treatment or a clear statement that it remains open.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Born's-rule "emergence" is imposed: the white-noise limit and exact G/J=1 are selected because they reproduce Born statistics, so the no-fine-tuning conclusion restates the model's input.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. 3.3 (Emergence of Born's rule), Eq. (18)-(19); Sec. 6 Conclusion]
    "Lenstra [10] works out the ratio G/J required for Born's rule to emerge in SUV model for various limits of the correlation time. ... So, the only valid solution is the so-called “white noise limit” where τt → 0, and the corresponding ratio is G/J = 1. ... Born’s rule emerges in SUV models and is not added as an axiom or is not a result of fine-tuning of parameters."

    Born's rule is the design target used to fix the SUV parameters: the text says G/J is 'required for Born's rule to emerge' and that only the white-noise limit with τt→0 and G/J=1 yields Born statistics. Eq. (18) is itself introduced by the statement that to make Born's rule emerge, Ĝ must be nonlinear and stochastic. Thus the conclusion that 'Born's rule emerges ... and is not a result of fine-tuning' is not an independent result of the dynamics; it is the imposed condition that selected the form of the perturbation and the value of its couplings. The emergence claim reduces, by construction, to the model's input constraint. Sec. 5.4's admission that no justification exists for the stochastic perturbation further confirms that this special limit is an input rather than a derived outcome.

full rationale

The one substantive circularity is in the central claim that Born's rule emerges in SUV models without fine-tuning. Sec. 3.3 identifies the parameter values by the requirement that they reproduce Born's rule: G/J is 'required for Born's rule to emerge,' and 'only the white noise limit' with G/J=1 works. The same section introduces the nonlinear-stochastic perturbation with the preamble 'For Born's rule to emerge... one needs G to be nonlinear and stochastic.' The conclusion then asserts that Born's rule is not an axiom and not fine-tuned, but the quoted text shows it is exactly the constraint that fixed the model and its parameters. The paper's other dependencies are on published SUV papers by the same group; those are external, peer-reviewed results rather than this paper defining its own conclusion, so I do not count them as circular. Sec. 5.4's admission that the white-noise requirement is 'rather implausible' and that no justification for the stochastic field exists does not itself create circularity, but it corroborates that the central 'emergence' is a special imposed limit rather than a derived consequence. Because the main philosophical payoff rests on this imposed Born-rule constraint, the circularity is partial but central.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 2 invented entities

The central claims are purchased with the SUV model from refs. [1]-[10]: singular thermodynamic limits, a postulated non-Hermitian perturbation, and a white-noise stochastic field with G/J = 1. These are not derived from independent physical principles in this paper, and the paper itself flags several of them as unjustified in Sec. 5.4.

free parameters (3)
  • relative coupling strength G/J = 1 (white-noise limit)
    Set to reproduce Born's rule in Sec. 3.3; the paper presents this as emergence rather than fine-tuning, but the value is chosen to satisfy the target statistics.
  • unitarity-breaking strength epsilon = not specified (small, with collapse time scale ~ 1/(N*epsilon))
    Introduced in Eqs. (6), (14), (15); controls when SUV becomes relevant but no numerical value or independent measurement is provided.
  • stochastic field correlation time tau_t = 0 (white-noise limit)
    Chosen so that Born's rule holds; for all nonzero correlation times, per Lenstra [10], Born's rule is not satisfied. The paper admits this limit is physically implausible.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Stone-von Neumann theorem: in finite dimensions, canonical commutation relations have a unique representation, so true spontaneous symmetry breaking requires the thermodynamic limit.
    Invoked in Sec. 2.2 to explain why SSB appears only as N tends to infinity; standard mathematical physics, not proved in the paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The thermodynamic singular limits of Eqs. (16)-(17) are a reliable guide to finite mesoscopic systems.
    The paper uses these limits to conclude that large crystals localize spontaneously, while acknowledging the limits are never realized for finite objects (Sec. 2.2, Sec. 3.2).
  • domain assumption A non-Hermitian field coupled only to the order parameter causes no energy change because it only mixes degenerate states in the thermodynamic limit.
    Used in Sec. 2.3 to dismiss the energy-conservation problem; attributed to Mukherjee and Wezel [9] without derivation.
  • domain assumption Born's rule emerges only for a white-noise stochastic field with correlation time tau_t = 0 and coupling ratio G/J = 1.
    This is the basis of the claimed emergence of Born's rule in Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 5; the paper itself calls the white-noise requirement implausible in Sec. 5.4.
  • domain assumption In the relevant mesoscopic regime the Wigner function behaves like a classical probability distribution, so its classical limit is a genuine probability density.
    Sec. 5.3 uses this to connect QM and SM probabilities, citing Wallace's caveat that this isomorphism holds only when higher-order terms can be neglected.
  • ad hoc to paper The density matrix obeys the von Neumann commutator equation even though the Hamiltonian in Eq. (15) is non-Hermitian.
    Eq. (22) is the starting point of the Wigner-function calculation; no Lindblad or trace-preservation terms are included for the non-unitary evolution.
invented entities (2)
  • Stochastic field xi(t)
    purpose: Introduces randomness into collapse dynamics and sets the direction of flow on the Bloch sphere, Eqs. (18)-(19).
    Imported from prior SUV literature; no physical source is identified, and Sec. 5.4 states there is no justification or proof that this perturbation is the one producing Born's rule and localization.
  • Non-Hermitian unitarity-breaking field i*epsilon*N*G operator
    purpose: Drives spontaneous localization by breaking time-translation symmetry, Eqs. (13)-(15).
    A postulated modification of the Schrodinger equation; no direct experimental evidence is cited in this paper, and its origin is part of the SUV model under review.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spontaneous Unitarity Violation and Quantum State Reduction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2FNEFLQN

@misc{pith2026250102125,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spontaneous Unitarity Violation and Quantum State Reduction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2FNEFLQN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02125}
}
read the original abstract

One of the central foundational problems in quantum mechanics is the inability of Schr\"odinger's unitary time evolution to describe measurement of a quantum state. Recent developments in models of spontaneous unitarity violation (SUV) propose that quantum state reduction can emerge as a thermodynamic phenomenon, offering a natural resolution to the measurement problem. This paper investigates the philosophical implications of SUV in relation to the nature of probabilities in quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics. It provides an alternate interpretation of probabilities in quantum mechanics that aligns with (and improves upon) the arguments of the propensity interpretation of probabilities.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02125 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Unitary evolution on the Bloch sphere. The flow lines indicate Rabi oscillations [7] [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Flow generated by a purely diag￾onal non-Hermitian generator of time evo￾lution. The state |0⟩ is an attractive fixed point of the flow, while |1⟩ is a repulsive fixed point [7]. For an OCT, on the other hand, the system should end up in either one of the pointer states, and evolve no further then as depicted in figure 2. On the Bloch sphere this translates to the state ending up at either the north pole of the sout… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Flow diagram for θ ∈ [0, π] described by (19) with G = J = 1 and ξ(t) = cos η(t) with η(t) = 2π/5∀t. The arrows here indicate the direction in which θ will flow, and η shows the repulsive fixed point and 0 and π are the attractive fixed points. Even though this is explicitly for a two-state system, this proof of principle shows that what determines the post-measurement state is the stochastic variable and the relati… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Relation between QM and SM 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

25 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quantum state reduction of general initial states through spontaneous unitarity violation

    Mukherjee, A. et. al., “Quantum state reduction of general initial states through spontaneous unitarity violation”, Entropy 26(2), 131 (2024) https://doi.org/10.3390/e26020131

    work page doi:10.3390/e26020131 2024

  2. [10]

    Constraints on the dynamics of quantum state reduction

    Lenstra El, “Constraints on the dynamics of quantum state reduction”, Master thesis, University of Amsterdam (2023) https://scripties.uba.uva.nl/search?id=record_53565

    work page 2023

  3. [2]

    Phase transitions as a manifestation of spontaneous unitarity violation

    Wezel, J., “Phase transitions as a manifestation of spontaneous unitarity violation”, J. Phys. A: Math. Theor. 55, 401001 (2022) https://doi.org/10.1088/1751-8121/ac9163

    work page doi:10.1088/1751-8121/ac9163 2022

  4. [3]

    Spontaneous symmetry breaking in quantum mechanics

    Brink, J., Wezel, J., “Spontaneous symmetry breaking in quantum mechanics”, Am. J. Phys.75, 635-638 (2007) https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2730839

    work page doi:10.1119/1.2730839 2007

  5. [4]

    An introduction to spontaneous symmetry breaking

    Beekamn, A., Rademaker, L., Wezel, J., “An introduction to spontaneous symmetry breaking”, SciPost Phys. Lect. Notes11 (2019) https://scipost.org/10.21468/SciPostPhysLectNotes.11

    doi:10.21468/scipostphyslectnotes.11 2019

  6. [5]

    Quantum dynamics in the thermodynamic limit

    Wezel, J., “Quantum dynamics in the thermodynamic limit”, Phys. Rev. B 78, 054301 (2008) https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevB.78.054301

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.78.054301 2008

  7. [6]

    Broken Time Translation Symmetry as a Model for Quantum State Reduction

    Wezel, J., “Broken Time Translation Symmetry as a Model for Quantum State Reduction”, Symmetry 2(2) 582-608 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3390/sym2020582

    work page doi:10.3390/sym2020582 2010

  8. [7]

    Inconsistency of linear dynamics and Born’s rule

    Mertens, L. et. al., “Inconsistency of linear dynamics and Born’s rule”, Phys. Rev. A104, 052224 (2021) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.104.052224

    work page doi:10.1103/physreva.104.052224 2021

Show all 25 references
  1. [8]

    An objective collapse model without state dependent stochastic- ity

    Mertens, L., Wesseling, M., Wezel, J., “An objective collapse model without state dependent stochastic- ity”, SciPost Phys. 14, 114 (2023) doi:10.21468/SciPostPhys.14.5.114

    2023 doi

  2. [9]

    Colored noise driven unitarity violation causing dynamical quantum state reduction

    Mukherjee, A., Wezel, J., “Colored noise driven unitarity violation causing dynamical quantum state reduction”, Phys. Rev. A109, 032214 (2024) https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.032214

    2024 doi

  3. [11]

    Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into what mixture does the wave packet collapse?

    Zurek, W., “Pointer basis of quantum apparatus: Into what mixture does the wave packet collapse?”, Phys. Rev. D24, 1516 (1981) https://doi.org/10.1103/physrevd.24.1516

    1981 doi

  4. [12]

    On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory

    Zeh, H.-D, “On the interpretation of measurement in quantum theory” Foundations of Physics 1(1), 69–76 (1970) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00708656

    1970 doi

  5. [13]

    The preferred-basis problem and the quantum mechanics of everything

    Barrett, Jeffrey, A., “The preferred-basis problem and the quantum mechanics of everything”, British Journal for the Philosophy of Science56 (2):199-220 (2005) https://doi.org/10.1093/bjps/axi114

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Quantum Systems. A review for Scholarpedia

    Strocchi, F., “Spontaneous Symmetry Breaking in Quantum Systems. A review for Scholarpedia” arXiv:1201.5459 [physics.hist-ph] (2012) https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1201.5459

    2012 doi arXiv

  7. [15]

    Collapse Theories

    Ghirardi, Giancarlo & Bassi, “Collapse Theories”, In: Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition)(2024) https://plato.stanford.edu/ archives/fall2024/entries/qm-collapse/

    2024

  8. [16]

    Scientific Realism

    Chakravartty, A., “Scientific Realism”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.) https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2017/entries/ scientific-realism/

    2017

  9. [17]

    Philosophical Theories of Probability

    Gillies, D., “Philosophical Theories of Probability”, Routledge (2000) https://doi.org/10.4324/ 9780203132241

    2000

  10. [18]

    Probabilistic issues in statistical mechanics

    Emch, G´ erard G., “Probabilistic issues in statistical mechanics”, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics36 (2):303-322 (2005) https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2004.06.003

    2005 doi

  11. [19]

    Can the statistical postulate of quantum theory be derived?—A critique of the many- universes interpretation

    Ballentine, L.E., “Can the statistical postulate of quantum theory be derived?—A critique of the many- universes interpretation”, Found Phys 3, 229–240 (1973) https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00708440 18

    1973 doi

  12. [20]

    The scientific image

    Van Fraassen Bas, C., “The scientific image”, New York: Oxford University Press(1980) https://doi. org/10.2307/2184804

    1980 doi

  13. [21]

    Time and the Propensity Interpretation of Probability

    Shanks, N., “Time and the Propensity Interpretation of Probability”, Journal for General Philosophy of Science 24(2) 293-302 (1993) https://www.jstor.org/stable/25170967

    1993

  14. [22]

    Probability and Irreversibility in Modern Statistical Mechanics: Classical and Quantum

    Wallace, D., “Probability and Irreversibility in Modern Statistical Mechanics: Classical and Quantum”, arXiv:2104.11223 [cond-mat.stat-mech] https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2104.11223

    doi arXiv

  15. [23]

    Beyond Chance and Credence: A Theory of Hybrid Probabilities

    Myrvold, Wayne C., “Beyond Chance and Credence: A Theory of Hybrid Probabilities” Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press(2021) https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198865094.001.0001

    2021

  16. [24]

    Wigner functions and Weyl transforms for pedestrians

    Case, W., “Wigner functions and Weyl transforms for pedestrians”, American Journal of Physics76(10), 937-946 (2008) https://doi.org/10.1119/1.2957889

    2008 doi

  17. [25]

    A nanoscale experiment measuring gravity’s role in breaking the unitarity of quantam dynamics

    Wezel, J., Oosterkamp, T., “A nanoscale experiment measuring gravity’s role in breaking the unitarity of quantam dynamics”, Proceedings of the Royal Society A468, 2137 (2011) https://doi.org/10.1098/ rspa.2011.0201 19

    2011

Pith tools

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