Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 50 references

Diffusion Minimization via Optimal Smearing in Collapse and Hybrid Classical-Quantum Gravitational Models

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A new variational principle fixes the arbitrary smearing in collapse and hybrid gravitational models, selecting a unique optimal profile for each model.

desk verdict A genuine new selection principle with correct variational math; the uniqueness claim is conditional on the stated constraints, but the paper is honest about that and deserves refereeing. read the letter →

arxiv 2511.00644 v2 pith:PZ7LZQYM submitted 2025-11-01 quant-ph gr-qc

Nicolò Piccione This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phgr-qc
keywords spontaneouscollapsemodelscontinuouslocalizationDiósi-PenrosemodelTilloy-Diósihybridheatingratesmearingdistributionvariationaloptimizationclassical-quantumgravity
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 introduces a 'Principle of Minimal Heating': among all possible smearings of the mass density operator with a given width, choose the one that makes the spontaneous heating rate smallest. This turns a previously arbitrary modeling choice into a solvable variational problem. The unique optimizers are a Gaussian for the GRW collapse model and compact-support polynomial profiles for the CSL and DP models, with the same DP profile applying to the Tilloy–Diósi hybrid classical-quantum model of Newtonian gravity. The optimal profiles cut predicted heating by 47% (CSL) and 22% (DP) relative to the usual Gaussian. For the hybrid model, combining this principle with the earlier least-decoherence principle leaves a single free parameter, the smearing length, which can be bounded from above and below.

What carries the argument

The central device is a set of variational problems: minimize the functional I[√g] (GRW), I[g] (CSL), or I_DP[g] (DP/TD) under positivity, normalization, and fixed-variance constraints. The solution uses the Pólya–Szegő rearrangement inequality to show the optimum is radial and decreasing, then Lagrange multipliers to solve the one-dimensional Euler–Lagrange equations. The resulting profiles are explicit, compact-support, and unique.

What would settle it

Find a positive, normalized, centered distribution with variance 3r_C² that yields a strictly lower value of the CSL or DP heating functional than the claimed optimizer — analytically or by numerical variational search — and the central claim is refuted.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For collapse and hybrid master equations whose heating rate is a state-independent functional of the smearing distribution, the paper minimizes that functional under the constraints g ≥ 0, ∫g = 1, and fixed variance ∫x²g = 3r_C². The unique minimizers are: a Gaussian for GRW; g(x) = (105/(32π(3r_C)^7))(9r_C² − x²)²₊ for CSL; and g(x) = (15/(8π(√7 r_C)^5))(7r_C² − x²)₊ for DP and for the matched-smearing Tilloy–Diósi model. The Gaussian is optimal only for GRW. For the Tilloy–Diósi hybrid model with matched measurement and feedback smearings, the optimizer coincides with the DP one, so the model is determined by r_C alone and becomes experimentally falsifiable both from below (heating) and ab

Load-bearing premise

The unique optimizers and the one-parameter Tilloy–Diósi claim rest on the specific constraints of non-negativity, normalization, and fixed variance (plus centering); the paper itself notes that different constraints would, in most cases, change the optimizers.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For each model, experimental constraints on heating now map directly onto a single optimal smearing profile; if the optimized variant is ruled out, all smearing variants of that model are disfavored.
  • Published bounds based on Gaussian smearings overestimate heating by 47% for CSL and 22% for DP, so existing limits on r_C should be re-evaluated.
  • The Tilloy–Diósi hybrid model is reduced to one free parameter, r_C, with both upper and lower experimental bounds, making the entire model class testable.
  • The single-particle equivalence between GRW and CSL is an artifact of Gaussian smearing; with the optimal profiles the equivalence breaks.
  • For models with different measurement and feedback smearings, the heating optimization splits into two independent problems, one for each smearing.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the principle is adopted as a model-selection criterion, the 47%/22% reductions in heating are modest enough that current experiments may not distinguish Gaussian from optimal smearings; higher precision is needed for a decisive test.
  • The result is sensitive to the constraint set: allowing signed smearings or directly shaping the noise correlator could change or eliminate the optimizers, a possibility the paper explicitly leaves open.
  • A natural extension is to test the same variational principle under different moment constraints (e.g., fixed fourth moment) to see whether the optimal profiles are robust.
  • For Poissonian-type models whose heating rate is state-dependent, the principle does not directly apply, so a generalized formulation would be needed.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a 'Principle of Minimal Heating' (PMH): for a fixed smearing length r_C, among positive, normalized, centered smearing distributions with variance 3r_C^2, choose the distribution that minimizes the model's heating rate. The principle is applied to the GRW, CSL, and DP collapse models and to the Tilloy–Diósi (TD) hybrid classical-quantum gravity model. The reported optimizers are Gaussian for GRW, the quartic bubble g(r)∝(9r_C^2-r^2)^2 for CSL, and the parabolic bubble g(r)∝(7r_C^2-r^2) for DP and for the matched-smearing TD model. Replacing the optimal profile by a Gaussian increases the heating rate by 47% for CSL and 22% for DP at fixed variance. The paper argues that this removes an otherwise ad hoc modeling choice and reduces the TD model to a single free parameter r_C.

Significance. If the results are correct, the paper gives a concrete, state-independent variational prescription that removes one layer of arbitrariness in collapse and hybrid models, and it provides closed-form optimizers that can be used in future phenomenological and experimental work. The central functional evaluations (the CSL Euler–Lagrange solution, the DP identity I_DP[g]=π∫g^2, the radii R=3r_C and R=√7 r_C, and the 47%/22% Gaussian penalties) reproduce, and the calculations are transparent enough to be independently checked. The contribution is useful even though the PMH is a stipulated selection principle rather than a derived consequence of the models.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Discussion; Eq. (3)] The paper's headline claims—'unique optimizer', 'entirely determined by only one free parameter', and 'if experimentally refuted, would strongly disfavor all variants'—are stated in the Abstract without the qualification that they hold only within the constraint set of Eq. (3): g≥0, ∫g=1, ∫xg=0, ∫x^2g=3r_C^2. The Discussion concedes that 'different constraints would, in most cases, change the optimizer(s)'. Since the PMH is a stipulated principle, the choice of constraints is part of the principle; it is not itself fixed by any physical argument. Other natural formulations (fixed support radius, fixed FWHM, fixed variance of √g, or signed smearings/correlator shaping raised in the Discussion) would generally lead to different optimizers and different heating-rate penalties. The Abstract and Conclusion should therefore say 'under constraints (3)' and 'disfavor any other version within thi
  2. [Appendix S3, normalization equation] There is a concrete algebraic error in the DP derivation. With g(r)=μ/(2π)(R^2-r^2), the normalization integral gives 4π∫_0^R r^2 g(r) dr = 4μR^5/15, not μR^5/15, so the printed μ=15R^{-5} is incorrect. The correct value is μ=15/(4R^5). With the printed μ, the variance equation would give 12R^2/7, not 3R^2/7, so the printed equations are internally inconsistent. The final distribution in Table I is nevertheless correct when the proper μ is used, but the derivation as printed needs to be fixed.
  3. [Appendix S4.3, Eq. (S.4.3.2); main-text Eq. (7)] Equation (S.4.3.2) writes γ̃_C(k)=(Ṽ(k)/(2ℏ))|g̃_{r_G}|/|g̃_{r_C}|. Since V(x)=-G/|x|, Ṽ(k)=-4πG/k^2, this gives a negative γ̃_C, inconsistent with the positive correlator used for the DP model. The main-text Eq. (7) has the correct positive expression 2πG/(ℏk^2)|g̃_{r_G}|/|g̃_{r_C}|. Please correct the sign/absolute value in Appendix S4.3 so the two derivations agree.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Table I caption] The row labeled 'Gaussian increase' would be clearer as 'Percentage increase in heating rate when the Gaussian is used instead of the optimal profile'.
  2. [Discussion] The sentence 'Different constraints would, in most cases, change the optimizer(s)' is important for the interpretation of the whole paper. It should appear earlier, at least in the Introduction after the statement of PMH, so readers are not misled by the unqualified uniqueness claims in the Abstract.
  3. [Appendix S3] When restoring physical units, the substitutions leading from R=√7 to the final expression in Table I are not shown. A one-line derivation would help readers verify the normalization and variance.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: PMH optimizers are direct variational solutions, not fitted or self-referential inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The Principle of Minimal Heating is an explicitly stated selection rule, not a quantity inferred from the outputs it is used to predict. For each model, the heating functional is computed from the master equation (I[sqrt(g)] for GRW, I[g] for CSL, I_DP[g] for DP/TD, as in Table I and the Appendices) and minimized under the stated constraints of Eq. (3); the resulting profiles and the 47%/22% Gaussian penalties are direct functional evaluations, not fitted parameters or renamed inputs. The Tilloy-Diosi one-parameter variant follows from the cited PLD correlator choice, Eq. (7), which is then combined with the DP-type heating functional; no parameter is fitted to the claimed prediction. The self-citations (Refs. [15,28,39]) are background phenomenology or examples of state-dependent models, and the load-bearing PLD citation is to Tilloy and Diosi rather than to the present author. The Discussion's admission that 'different constraints would, in most cases, change the optimizer(s)' is a genuine limitation of the uniqueness claim, but it is not circularity: an optimizer is always defined relative to its constraint set, and the paper does not present that dependence as an independent derivation. No equation in the paper reduces to its own input, and no fitted input is relabeled as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 9 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The ledger is light: the paper adds one postulated principle (PMH), one constraint set (Eq. 3), and inherits the PLD correlator from Ref [12]. Everything else is standard mathematics or previously established model dynamics. No data fitting occurs; the headline 47%/22% percentages are direct functional evaluations. No new physical entities (particles, forces, dimensions) are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • r_C (smearing length)
    The single retained free parameter of each optimized model and of the resulting TD model. Not fitted in this paper; the paper argues experiments bound it from below (heating) and above (Newton's-law deviations). All optimal profiles depend on r_C through the variance constraint.
assumptions (9)
  • ad hoc to paper The smearing distribution should be the one minimizing the heating rate at fixed smearing variance r_C² (Principle of Minimal Heating).
    Proposed in this paper (Introduction, Abstract). It is a postulate selecting the model; if rejected, all Table I optimizers are moot. The paper explicitly notes that different principles or constraints would change the optimizer.
  • ad hoc to paper Allowed smearings satisfy g ≥ 0, ∫g = 1, ∫x²g = 3r_C², and are centered (∫xg = 0).
    Eq. (3). The optimizers solve this specific constrained problem; signed smearings or different width measures would change the results. The Discussion concedes 'different constraints would, in most cases, change the optimizer(s).'
  • domain assumption GRW/CSL/DP master equations (Eq. (2), Table I) and the TD master equation (Eqs. (4)–(5)) correctly describe their models.
    Taken from the cited literature [6, 7, 11–13]; the optimization is performed within these dynamics.
  • domain assumption The heating rate is state-independent for GRW/CSL/DP/TD and splits into single-particle contributions.
    Stated in the text ('Ė_t is a state-independent quantity... computed as a sum of single particle contributions [6, 7]') and used to set up the unconstrained variational problems. The paper notes this fails for Poissonian-type models.
  • standard math Symmetric decreasing rearrangement reduces the Dirichlet energy and L² norm, so the optimizer is radial and decreasing.
    Pólya–Szegő inequality, used in Appendices S2 and S3 (Refs [47, 48]).
  • standard math Minimum of (1/2)∫|∇ψ|² at fixed variance is attained by Gaussians.
    Heisenberg–Pauli–Weyl inequality saturation, used in Appendix S1 (Refs [42–45]).
  • standard math I_DP[g] = (1/4)∫∫|x−y|⁻¹∇g(x)·∇g(y)dxdy = π∫|g(x)|²dx.
    Appendix S3, Eq. (S.3.0.1); follows from the 3D Coulomb-kernel Fourier transform under the stated conventions. Verified against the paper's numerical values.
  • domain assumption The Principle of Least Decoherence singles out γ̃C(k) = (2πG/ℏk²)|g̃_{rG}|/|g̃_{rC}|, which is the DP correlator when smearings match.
    Inherited from Ref [12] and used in Eq. (7); the one-parameter TD model claim rests on this cited result.
  • domain assumption For the main TD result, the measurement and feedback smearings are taken equal (g_{rG} = g_{rC}).
    Assumption stated explicitly in the text; the paper also solves the unequal-smearing generalization.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Diffusion Minimization via Optimal Smearing in Collapse and Hybrid Classical-Quantum Gravitational Models." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/PZ7LZQYM

@misc{pith2026251100644,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Diffusion Minimization via Optimal Smearing in Collapse and Hybrid Classical-Quantum Gravitational Models},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/PZ7LZQYM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2511.00644}
}
abstract

Spontaneous diffusion (i.e., non-conservation of energy) is a prominent, testable prediction of collapse and hybrid classical-quantum gravitational models. Without smearing of the mass density operator, the associated heating (or energy increase) rate diverges, yet the smearing distribution is arbitrary and, on scales much larger than the smearing length $r_C$, much of the phenomenology is expected to be insensitive to this choice. We propose to resolve this arbitrariness as follows: for a fixed $r_C$, select the distribution that minimizes the heating rate. Conceptually, this should identify the minimal deviation from standard quantum mechanics and provide models that, once experimentally refuted, would strongly disfavor all variants with different distributions. We apply this approach to the most investigated collapse models: GRW (for Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber), CSL (for Continuous Spontaneous Localization), and DP (for Di\'osi-Penrose). Notably, the Gaussian is optimal only for the GRW case. Finally, we apply it to the Tilloy-Di\'osi hybrid classical-quantum model of Newtonian gravity, leading to the minimally deviating variant of it. This version of the model is entirely determined by only one free parameter $r_C$ and, if experimentally refuted, would strongly disfavor any other version of it.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. S. Bell,Speakable and unspeakable in quantum mechan- ics: Collected papers on quantum philosophy(Cambridge university press, 2004)

    2004

  2. [2]

    Norsen,Foundations of quantum mechanics(Springer, 2017)

    T. Norsen,Foundations of quantum mechanics(Springer, 2017)

    2017

  3. [3]

    Dürr and D

    D. Dürr and D. Lazarovici,Understanding quantum me- chanics(Springer, 2020)

    2020

  4. [4]

    Tumulka,Foundations of quantum mechanics, Vol

    R. Tumulka,Foundations of quantum mechanics, Vol. 1003 (Springer Nature, 2022)

    2022

  5. [5]

    Kiefer, Quantum gravity – an unfinished revolu- tion (2023), invited contribution to EPS Grand Chal- lenges: Physics for Society at the Horizon 2050, arXiv:2302.13047 [gr-qc]

    C. Kiefer, Quantum gravity – an unfinished revolu- tion (2023), invited contribution to EPS Grand Chal- lenges: Physics for Society at the Horizon 2050, arXiv:2302.13047 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2023

  6. [6]

    Bassi and G

    A. Bassi and G. Ghirardi, Dynamical reduction models, Physics Reports379, 257 (2003)

    2003

  7. [7]

    Bassi, K

    A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh, and H. Ul- bricht, Models of wave-function collapse, underlying the- ories, and experimental tests, Rev. Mod. Phys.85, 471 (2013)

    2013

  8. [8]

    Bassi, M

    A. Bassi, M. Dorato, and H. Ulbricht, Collapse models: Atheoretical, experimentalandphilosophicalreview,En- tropy25, 10.3390/e25040645 (2023)

    doi:10.3390/e25040645 2023

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Kafri, J

    D. Kafri, J. M. Taylor, and G. J. Milburn, A classical channel model for gravitational decoherence, New Jour- nal of Physics16, 065020 (2014)

    2014

  2. [10]

    Kafri, G

    D. Kafri, G. J. Milburn, and J. M. Taylor, Bounds on quantum communication via newtonian gravity, New Journal of Physics17, 015006 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    Tilloy and L

    A. Tilloy and L. Diósi, Sourcing semiclassical gravity from spontaneously localized quantum matter, Phys. Rev. D93, 024026 (2016)

    2016

  4. [12]

    Tilloy and L

    A. Tilloy and L. Diósi, Principle of least decoherence for newtonian semiclassical gravity, Phys. Rev. D96, 104045 (2017)

    2017

  5. [13]

    J. L. Gaona-Reyes, M. Carlesso, and A. Bassi, Gravita- tional interaction through a feedback mechanism, Phys. Rev. D103, 056011 (2021)

    2021

  6. [14]

    Oppenheim, A postquantum theory of classical grav- ity?, Phys

    J. Oppenheim, A postquantum theory of classical grav- ity?, Phys. Rev. X13, 041040 (2023)

    2023

  7. [15]

    Piccione and A

    N. Piccione and A. Bassi, Hybrid classical-quantum new- tonian gravity with stable vacuum, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity 10.1088/1361-6382/ae1540 (2025)

    2025 doi

  8. [16]

    S. Bose, A. Mazumdar, G. W. Morley, H. Ulbricht, M. Toroš, M. Paternostro, A. A. Geraci, P. F. Barker, M. S. Kim, and G. Milburn, Spin entanglement wit- ness for quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 240401 (2017)

    2017

  9. [17]

    Marletto and V

    C. Marletto and V. Vedral, Gravitationally induced en- tanglement between two massive particles is sufficient ev- idence of quantum effects in gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 240402 (2017)

    2017

  10. [18]

    L. Lami, J. S. Pedernales, and M. B. Plenio, Testing the quantumness of gravity without entanglement, Phys. Rev. X14, 021022 (2024)

    2024

  11. [19]

    Angeli, S

    O. Angeli, S. Donadi, G. D. Bartolomeo, J. L. Gaona- Reyes, A. Vinante, and A. Bassi, Probing the quan- tum nature of gravity through classical diffusion (2025), arXiv:2501.13030 [quant-ph]

    2025 arXiv

  12. [20]

    S. Bose, I. Fuentes, A. A. Geraci, S. M. Khan, S. Qvar- fort, M. Rademacher, M. Rashid, M. Toroš, H. Ulbricht, and C. C. Wanjura, Massive quantum systems as inter- facesofquantummechanicsandgravity,Rev.Mod.Phys. 97, 015003 (2025)

    2025

  13. [21]

    Donadi, L

    S. Donadi, L. Ferialdi, and A. Bassi, Collapse dynamics are diffusive, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, 230202 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    T. D. Galley, F. Giacomini, and J. H. Selby, Any con- sistent coupling between classical gravity and quantum matter is fundamentally irreversible, Quantum7, 1142 (2023)

    2023

  15. [23]

    Tilloy, General quantum-classical dynamics as mea- surement based feedback, SciPost Phys.17, 083 (2024)

    A. Tilloy, General quantum-classical dynamics as mea- surement based feedback, SciPost Phys.17, 083 (2024)

    2024

  16. [24]

    Barchielli, Markovian dynamics for a quan- tum/classical system and quantum trajectories, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57, 315301 (2024)

    A. Barchielli, Markovian dynamics for a quan- tum/classical system and quantum trajectories, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical57, 315301 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Trillo and M

    D. Trillo and M. Navascués, Diósi-penrose model of clas- sical gravity predicts gravitationally induced entangle- ment, Phys. Rev. D111, L121101 (2025)

    2025

  18. [26]

    Angeli and M

    O. Angeli and M. Carlesso, Entanglement in markovian hybrid classical-quantum theories of gravity, Phys. Rev. D112, 024047 (2025)

    2025

  19. [27]

    Toroš and A

    M. Toroš and A. Bassi, Bounds on quantum collapse models from matter-wave interferometry: calculational details, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theo- retical51, 115302 (2018)

    2018

  20. [28]

    Piccione and A

    N. Piccione and A. Bassi, Exploring the effects of mass dependence in spontaneous collapse models, Phys. Rev. A112, 012212 (2025)

    2025

  21. [29]

    Figurato, M

    L. Figurato, M. Dirindin, J. L. Gaona-Reyes, M. Car- lesso, A. Bassi, and S. Donadi, On the effectiveness of the collapse in the diósi–penrose model, New Journal of Physics26, 113004 (2024)

    2024

  22. [30]

    Carlesso, S

    M. Carlesso, S. Donadi, L. Ferialdi, M. Paternostro, H. Ulbricht, and A. Bassi, Present status and future chal- lenges of non-interferometric tests of collapse models, Na- ture Physics18, 243 (2022)

    2022

  23. [31]

    G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Unified dy- namics for microscopic and macroscopic systems, Phys. Rev. D34, 470 (1986)

    1986

  24. [32]

    G. C. Ghirardi, P. Pearle, and A. Rimini, Markov pro- cesses in hilbert space and continuous spontaneous local- ization of systems of identical particles, Phys. Rev. A42, 78 (1990)

    1990

  25. [33]

    Pearle and E

    P. Pearle and E. Squires, Bound state excitation, nucleon decay experiments and models of wave function collapse, Phys. Rev. Lett.73, 1 (1994). 6

    1994

  26. [34]

    Diósi, A universal master equation for the gravita- tional violation of quantum mechanics, Physics Letters A120, 377 (1987)

    L. Diósi, A universal master equation for the gravita- tional violation of quantum mechanics, Physics Letters A120, 377 (1987)

    1987

  27. [35]

    Diósi, Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations, Phys

    L. Diósi, Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations, Phys. Rev. A40, 1165 (1989)

    1989

  28. [36]

    Penrose, On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction, General relativity and gravitation28, 581 (1996)

    R. Penrose, On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction, General relativity and gravitation28, 581 (1996)

    1996

  29. [37]

    Penrose, On the gravitization of quantum mechanics 1: Quantum state reduction, Found

    R. Penrose, On the gravitization of quantum mechanics 1: Quantum state reduction, Found. Phys44, 557 (2014)

    2014

  30. [38]

    Donadi, K

    S. Donadi, K. Piscicchia, C. Curceanu, L. Diósi, M. Laubenstein, and A. Bassi, Underground test of gravity-related wave function collapse, Nature Physics 17, 10.1038/s41567-020-1008-4 (2021)

    2021 doi

  31. [39]

    Piccione, A proposal for a new kind of spontaneous collapse model, Found

    N. Piccione, A proposal for a new kind of spontaneous collapse model, Found. Phys.54, 4 (2023)

    2023

  32. [40]

    Janse, D

    M. Janse, D. G. Uitenbroek, L. van Everdingen, J. Plugge, B. Hensen, and T. H. Oosterkamp, Current experimental upper bounds on spacetime diffusion, Phys. Rev. Res.6, 033076 (2024)

    2024

  33. [41]

    L. C. Evans,Partial Differential Equations, 2nd ed., Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 19 (American Mathematical Society, 2010)

    2010

  34. [42]

    G. B. Folland and A. Sitaram, The uncertainty principle: A mathematical survey, Journal of Fourier Analysis and Applications3, 207 (1997)

    1997

  35. [43]

    McCurdy and R

    S. McCurdy and R. Venkatraman, Quantitative stabil- ity for the heisenberg–pauli–weyl inequality, Nonlinear Analysis202, 112147 (2021)

    2021

  36. [44]

    Fathi, A short proof of quantitative stability for the heisenberg–pauli–weyl inequality, Nonlinear Analysis 210, 112403 (2021)

    M. Fathi, A short proof of quantitative stability for the heisenberg–pauli–weyl inequality, Nonlinear Analysis 210, 112403 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    V. V. Dodonov, Variance-based uncertainty relations: A concise review of inequalities discovered since 1927, Quantum Reports7, 10.3390/quantum7030034 (2025)

    1927 doi

  38. [46]

    J. M. Borwein and J. D. Vanderwerff,Convex Functions: Constructions, Characterizations and Counterexamples, Vol. 109 (Cambridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  39. [47]

    Kesavan,Symmetrization and Applications, Series in Analysis, Vol

    S. Kesavan,Symmetrization and Applications, Series in Analysis, Vol. 3 (World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., 2006)

    2006

  40. [48]

    E. H. Lieb and M. Loss,Analysis, 2nd ed., Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 14 (American Mathemati- cal Society, 2001)

    2001

  41. [49]

    H. M. Wiseman and G. J. Milburn,Quantum Measure- ment and Control, 1st ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2009)

    2009

  42. [50]

    wavefunction

    K. Jacobs,Quantum Measurement Theory and its Appli- cations(Cambridge University Press, 2014). 7 Appendix S1: Minimization of the GR W heating rate In the GRW model, the master equation for a generic system ofNparticles takes the form [6] d dt ρt =− i ℏ h ˆH, ρt i − X j λj ρt ...

    2014

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.