arxiv: 2605.12955 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-13 · 🪐 quant-ph · gr-qc

Recognition: unknown

Microscopic Origins of Collapse Models: Decoherence from Graviton Bremsstrahlung

Moslem Zarei

Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-14 18:41 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph gr-qc

keywords graviton bremsstrahlunggravitational decoherencecollapse modelsquantum Boltzmann equationcontinuous spontaneous localizationwave-function collapsespatial superposition

0 comments

The pith

A fermion in spatial superposition decoheres via graviton emission at a rate fixed by its mass, separation, and gravitational coupling.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper models a fermion held in two spatially separated locations and calculates the decoherence that arises when the particle emits gravitons. It applies the quantum Boltzmann equation to the emission process and extracts an explicit decoherence rate whose magnitude increases with larger separation and with heavier particle mass. This calculation supplies a microscopic, field-theoretic account of how gravitational interactions can destabilize superpositions, thereby connecting quantum-field-theory dynamics to the phenomenological predictions of collapse models. A reader cares because the result offers a concrete, parameter-dependent mechanism that could be checked in laboratory interferometers without first solving the full problem of quantum gravity.

Core claim

By inserting the graviton-emission interaction into the collision term of the quantum Boltzmann equation for a spatially superposed fermion, the authors obtain a decoherence rate that depends on the square of the gravitational coupling constant, the square of the fermion mass, and a function of the spatial separation between the branches of the superposition. The rate quantifies the loss of off-diagonal coherence in the position basis and thereby supplies a quantitative link between graviton bremsstrahlung and the instability of macroscopic superpositions assumed in collapse models.

What carries the argument

The collision term of the quantum Boltzmann equation applied to graviton bremsstrahlung from a spatially superposed fermion.

If this is right

Decoherence becomes faster for larger spatial separations between superposition branches.
Heavier particles decohere more rapidly because gravitational coupling to emitted gravitons grows with mass.
The derived rate supplies a concrete prediction for the dissipative continuous spontaneous localization model.
Laboratory tests of gravity-induced collapse become feasible by varying mass and separation in interferometers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The same Boltzmann-equation treatment could be applied to bosonic particles or to superpositions in weak gravitational fields to test generality.
If the rate matches experiment, it would constrain the parameter space of other collapse models that lack an explicit gravitational origin.
Extension to curved backgrounds might reveal whether the effect changes near strong gravity sources such as neutron stars.

Load-bearing premise

The quantum Boltzmann equation remains valid for describing graviton emission from a fermion whose position is in superposition, without corrections from a complete quantum theory of gravity.

What would settle it

Perform matter-wave interferometry on particles of known mass at controlled spatial separations and measure whether the observed decoherence time scales as predicted with mass squared and with separation distance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.12955 by Moslem Zarei.

**Figure 2.** Figure 2: FIG. 2. Contour plot of the gravitationally induced decoherence time [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

read the original abstract

Some collapse models proposed that gravitational effects cause the instability of mass distribution superpositions, leading to wave function collapse. In this paper, we utilize the quantum Boltzmann equation (QBE) to analyze the behavior of a fermion in a spatial superposition under graviton emission. We introduce a quantitative measure that links the stability of the superposition to the spatial separation, particle mass, and gravitational coupling. By examining the collision term in the QBE, we derive the decoherence rate and show how it depends on these parameters. Our results provide a detailed framework for understanding gravity induced decoherence, bridging the gap between quantum field theory and collapse models. We also discuss the implications of these findings for experimental tests of gravitationally induced wave function collapse and the broader class of collapse models known as dissipative continuous spontaneous localization (CSL) model.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Desk Editor's Note private letter to a colleague

The paper derives a graviton bremsstrahlung decoherence rate via the quantum Boltzmann equation for spatial superpositions but the key step assumes the standard QBE applies without major corrections for coherent delocalization.

read the letter

The main takeaway is that this work applies the quantum Boltzmann equation to graviton emission from a fermion in spatial superposition and extracts a decoherence rate that depends on separation distance, mass, and gravitational coupling. It positions this as a microscopic origin for features of collapse models, specifically linking to dissipative CSL phenomenology, and sketches some experimental implications. That quantitative link is the new piece relative to earlier gravity-decoherence discussions that stayed more qualitative or semiclassical. The paper does a reasonable job of framing the calculation around the collision term and showing how the parameters enter the rate, which gives a concrete handle that could be checked against lab bounds if the numbers hold up. Credit for trying to stay inside ordinary QFT rather than adding ad-hoc collapse operators. The soft spot is exactly the one flagged in the stress-test note. The QBE collision integral is being used for a coherently spread-out source, yet standard perturbative bremsstrahlung derivations assume a localized emitter; once the particle is delocalized over macroscopic distances the emission amplitudes can interfere and back-reaction or metric fluctuations may matter. The abstract gives no explicit form for the collision term, no cutoff procedure, and no error estimate, so it is impossible to tell whether the separation dependence survives those issues or whether the result is an artifact of the approximation. No comparison to existing experimental limits on gravity-induced decoherence appears either. This is for people working on gravity-induced decoherence and collapse-model foundations who want to see a Boltzmann-equation route. A reader already comfortable with QBE applications to gravity would get the framework and the parameter scalings, but would still need the full derivation to judge the numbers. I would send it to peer review because the idea is worth a proper check of the calculation and the validity range of the QBE step, even though the current presentation leaves the central claim under-supported.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript applies the quantum Boltzmann equation to a fermion in spatial superposition, extracting a decoherence rate from the collision term due to graviton bremsstrahlung. The derived rate is shown to depend on spatial separation, particle mass, and gravitational coupling strength, providing a microscopic mechanism for gravitational instability of superpositions and a link to dissipative CSL collapse models, with discussion of experimental tests.

Significance. If the central derivation is valid, the work supplies a concrete, calculable decoherence rate from perturbative QFT that could be compared directly with matter-wave interferometry bounds, thereby offering falsifiable predictions that connect standard quantum field theory to phenomenological collapse models without additional free parameters. This would be a useful contribution to the literature on gravity-induced decoherence.

major comments (2)

[§3] §3 (Collision term analysis): The reduction of the QBE collision integral to a decoherence rate for a coherently delocalized fermion is not accompanied by an explicit expression for the graviton emission amplitude modified by the spatial superposition phase; without this step the claimed dependence on separation cannot be verified.
[§4] §4 (Decoherence rate derivation): The manuscript invokes the standard perturbative QBE without demonstrating that back-reaction or non-perturbative gravitational effects remain negligible for macroscopic separations; this assumption is load-bearing for the central claim that the rate provides a microscopic origin for collapse.

minor comments (2)

[Abstract] The abstract would benefit from a single key equation or scaling relation for the decoherence rate to allow immediate assessment of the result.
[§2] Notation for the superposition separation parameter should be defined at first use and kept consistent with the figures.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each major point below, providing clarifications and indicating revisions where appropriate to strengthen the presentation of the derivation.

read point-by-point responses

Referee: [§3] §3 (Collision term analysis): The reduction of the QBE collision integral to a decoherence rate for a coherently delocalized fermion is not accompanied by an explicit expression for the graviton emission amplitude modified by the spatial superposition phase; without this step the claimed dependence on separation cannot be verified.

Authors: We appreciate the referee highlighting the need for greater explicitness. The phase factor arising from the spatial superposition of the fermion is included in the matrix element for graviton emission, specifically through the term exp(i q · Δx) where Δx is the separation vector and q is the graviton momentum transfer; this leads directly to the separation-dependent factor in the decoherence rate after integrating the collision term. To address the concern, we will insert the full modified amplitude expression immediately prior to the reduction of the collision integral in the revised §3, allowing direct verification of the dependence. revision: yes
Referee: [§4] §4 (Decoherence rate derivation): The manuscript invokes the standard perturbative QBE without demonstrating that back-reaction or non-perturbative gravitational effects remain negligible for macroscopic separations; this assumption is load-bearing for the central claim that the rate provides a microscopic origin for collapse.

Authors: The referee correctly identifies that the perturbative validity of the QBE requires justification for larger separations. In the revision we will add a new paragraph in §4 that estimates the back-reaction scale by comparing the gravitational self-energy of the superposition to the decoherence energy ħ/τ_dec; for the mass and separation ranges considered (up to ~10^{-5} m), this ratio remains ≪1, supporting the perturbative treatment. We note that truly macroscopic regimes may require non-perturbative methods, but our central claim is restricted to the regime where the QBE applies and furnishes a microscopic link to collapse models. revision: partial

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity in QBE-based derivation of decoherence rate

full rationale

The paper derives the decoherence rate by direct examination of the collision term in the standard quantum Boltzmann equation applied to graviton bremsstrahlung from a spatially superposed fermion. No steps reduce by construction to fitted parameters, self-definitions, or load-bearing self-citations; the dependence on separation, mass, and coupling emerges from the perturbative QFT treatment within the QBE framework without tautological renaming or imported uniqueness theorems. The central claim remains independent of its own outputs.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

The derivation rests on the applicability of the quantum Boltzmann equation to gravitational scattering and on standard quantum-field-theory treatment of gravitons; no new free parameters or invented entities are introduced in the abstract.

axioms (1)

domain assumption The quantum Boltzmann equation accurately describes the collision term for graviton emission from a spatially superposed fermion.
Invoked to obtain the decoherence rate from the collision integral.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5431 in / 1242 out tokens · 64458 ms · 2026-05-14T18:41:04.944347+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

42 extracted references · 31 canonical work pages

[1]

Coherent amplification and volume-normalized spectrum For a composite system ofNapproximately identical constituents, graviton emission amplitudes add coherently in the long-wavelength regime. The total emission amplitude can be estimated in terms of the amplitude of the emmission from single particleA1 as Atot = NX i=1 Ai ≈NA 1 ,(36) which leads to a qua...
[2]

G. Galilei

Hierarchy of physical regimes The quadratic scaling in Eq. (37) generates a clear hierarchy across physical systems. In the regime where spatial nonlocality is subleading, the decoherence kernel simplifies to Γ(∆x)≈ κ2 16m2 f G(∆x)N 2 Z ∞ 0 p2dp 2π2 ˜I(g)(p).(43) Assuming an exponential spectrum ˜I(g)(p) =I 0 e−p/pc ,(44) 7 FIG. 2. Contour plot of the gra...
[3]

(iq′ 1µ1)γ ν1 ur1(q1)h s2µ2ν2(p2) ¯ur′ 2(q2) (−iq′ 2µ2)γ ν2 ur2(q′ 2) ×e−σ2 0 |q′ 1−q1+p1|2 e−i(q′ 1−q1+p1)·¯x1(τ1) e−σ2 0 |q′ 2−q2+p2|2 ei(q′ 2−q2+p2)·¯x2(τ2) ×ei(q′0 1 −q0 1+p0 1)x0 1 ρ(g) s2s1(p2)δ 3(p1 −p 2) h δr1r2 δr′ 2iδ3(q2 −q 1)δ3(k−q ′ 2)δ3(q′ 1 −k)ρ (f) jr ′ 1 (k) −δr1iδr2jδ3(k−q 1)δ3(q2 −k)δ 3(q′ 1 −q ′ 2)ρ(f) r′ 2r′ 1 (q′ 2) i .(B2) In the no...
[4]

(iq′ 1µ1)γ ν1 ur1(q1)hs2µ2ν2(p2) ¯ur′ 2(q2) (−iq′ 2µ2)γ ν2 ur2(q′ 2) ×exp −σ2 0|q′ 1 −q 1 +p 1|2 exp[−i(q′ 1 −q 1 +p 1)· ¯x1] exp −σ2 0|q′ 2 −q 2 +p 2|2 exp[i(q′ 2 −q 2 +p 2)· ¯x2] ×ρ (g) s2s1(p2)δ 3(p1 −p 2) h δr1r2 δr′ 2iδ3(q2 −q 1)δ3(k−q ′ 2)δ3(q′ 1 −k)ρ (f) jr ′ 1 (k) −δr1iδr2jδ3(k−q 1)δ3(q2 −k)δ 3(q′ 1 −q ′ 2)ρ(f) r′ 2r′ 1 (q′ 2) i .(B3) After perfor...
[5]

Dissipative Continuous Spontaneous Localization (CSL) model.Sci

Andrea Smirne and Angelo Bassi. Dissipative Continuous Spontaneous Localization (CSL) model.Sci. Rep., 5:12518,
[6]

doi:10.1038/srep12518(2015)

work page doi:10.1038/srep12518(2015 2015
[7]

Sourcing semiclassical gravity from spontaneously localized quantum matter.Phys

Antoine Tilloy and Lajos Diósi. Sourcing semiclassical gravity from spontaneously localized quantum matter.Phys. Rev. D, 93(2):024026, 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.93.024026

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.024026 2016
[8]

Kafri, J

D. Kafri, J. M. Taylor, and G. J. Milburn. A classical channel model for gravitational decoherence.New J. Phys., 16: 065020, 2014. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065020

work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/16/6/065020 2014
[9]

L. Diósi. Models for universal reduction of macroscopic quantum fluctuations. Phys. Rev. A, 40(3):1165, 1989. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevA.40.1165

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.40.1165 1989
[10]

On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction.Gen

Roger Penrose. On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction.Gen. Rel. Grav., 28:581–600, 1996. doi:10.1007/BF02105068

work page doi:10.1007/bf02105068 1996
[11]

Underground test of gravity-related wave function collapse.Nature Phys., 17(1):74–78, 2021

SandroDonadi, KristianPiscicchia, CatalinaCurceanu, LajosDiósi, MatthiasLaubenstein, andAngeloBassi. Underground test of gravity-related wave function collapse.Nature Phys., 17(1):74–78, 2021. doi:10.1038/s41567-020-1008-4

work page doi:10.1038/s41567-020-1008-4 2021
[12]

X-Ray Emission from Atomic Systems Can Distinguish between Prevailing Dynamical Wave-Function Col- lapse Models

Kristian Piscicchia, Sandro Donadi, Simone Manti, Angelo Bassi, Maaneli Derakhshani, Lajos Diósi, and Catalina Curceanu. X-Ray Emission from Atomic Systems Can Distinguish between Prevailing Dynamical Wave-Function Col- lapse Models. Phys. Rev. Lett., 132(25):250203, 2024. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.250203

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.132.250203 2024
[13]

de Souza, Caio C

Vitoria A. de Souza, Caio C. Holanda Ribeiro, and Vitorio A. De Lorenci. Macroscopic quantum superpositions in superconducting circuits. 6 2024

2024
[14]

Schrödinger’s Cheshire Cat: A tabletop experiment to measure the Diósi- Penrose collapse time and demonstrate Objective Reduction (OR)

James Tagg, William Reid, and Daniel Carlin. Schrödinger’s Cheshire Cat: A tabletop experiment to measure the Diósi- Penrose collapse time and demonstrate Objective Reduction (OR). 2 2024

2024
[15]

Experimental bounds on linear-friction dissipative collapse models from levitated optomechanics.New J

Giovanni Di Bartolomeo and Matteo Carlesso. Experimental bounds on linear-friction dissipative collapse models from levitated optomechanics.New J. Phys., 26(4):043006, 2024. doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ad3842

work page doi:10.1088/1367-2630/ad3842 2024
[16]

doi:10.1116/5.0185291

Terrestrial Very-Long-Baseline Atom Interferometry: Workshop Summary, 10 2023. doi:10.1116/5.0185291

work page doi:10.1116/5.0185291 2023
[17]

Abbasi et al

R. Abbasi et al. Search for decoherence from quantum gravity with atmospheric neutrinos.Nature Phys., 20(6):913–920,
[18]

doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02436-w

work page doi:10.1038/s41567-024-02436-w
[19]

Probing gravity-related decoherence with a 16µg Schrödinger cat state

Matteo Fadel. Probing gravity-related decoherence with a 16µg Schrödinger cat state. 5 2023

2023
[20]

Underground Tests of Quantum Mechanics by the VIP Collaboration at Gran Sasso.Symmetry, 15(2):480, 2023

Fabrizio Napolitano et al. Underground Tests of Quantum Mechanics by the VIP Collaboration at Gran Sasso.Symmetry, 15(2):480, 2023. doi:10.3390/sym15020480

work page doi:10.3390/sym15020480 2023
[21]

Bassi et al

A. Bassi et al. A way forward for fundamental physics in space.npj Microgravity, 8(1):49, 2022. doi:10.1038/s41526-022- 00229-0

work page doi:10.1038/s41526-022- 2022
[22]

Observability of spontaneous collapse in flavor oscillations and its relation to the CP and CPT symmetries

Kyrylo Simonov. Observability of spontaneous collapse in flavor oscillations and its relation to the CP and CPT symmetries. Phys. Lett. A, 452:128413, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2022.128413

work page doi:10.1016/j.physleta.2022.128413 2022
[23]

Gramolin, David E

Mark Polkovnikov, Alexander V. Gramolin, David E. Kaplan, Surjeet Rajendran, and Alexander O. Sushkov. Exper- imental Limit on Nonlinear State-Dependent Terms in Quantum Theory.Phys. Rev. Lett., 130(4):040202, 2023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.130.040202

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.130.040202 2023
[24]

Underground tests of Quantum Mechanics at Gran Sasso.PoS, DISCRETE2020-2021:005, 2022

Catalina Curceanu et al. Underground tests of Quantum Mechanics at Gran Sasso.PoS, DISCRETE2020-2021:005, 2022. doi:10.22323/1.405.0005

work page doi:10.22323/1.405.0005 2021
[25]

Gravitationally induced decoherence vs space-time diffusion: testing the quantum nature of gravity.Nature Commun., 14(1):7910, 2023

Jonathan Oppenheim, Carlo Sparaciari, Barbara Šoda, and Zachary Weller-Davies. Gravitationally induced decoherence vs space-time diffusion: testing the quantum nature of gravity.Nature Commun., 14(1):7910, 2023. doi:10.1038/s41467- 023-43348-2

work page doi:10.1038/s41467- 2023
[26]

Testing the foundations of quantum physics in space Interferometric and non-interferometric tests with Large Particles.Commun

Giulio Gasbarri, Alessio Belenchia, Matteo Carlesso, Sandro Donadi, Angelo Bassi, Rainer Kaltenbaek, Mauro Paternostro, and Hendrik Ulbricht. Testing the foundations of quantum physics in space Interferometric and non-interferometric tests with Large Particles.Commun. Phys., 4:155, 2021. doi:10.1038/s42005-021-00656-7

work page doi:10.1038/s42005-021-00656-7 2021
[27]

Quantum physics in space.Phys

Alessio Belenchia et al. Quantum physics in space.Phys. Rept., 951:1–70, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2021.11.004

work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2021.11.004 2022
[28]

Carlesso, A

M. Carlesso, A. Bassi, P. Falferi, and A. Vinante. Experimental bounds on collapse models from gravitational wave 15 detectors. Phys. Rev. D, 94(12):124036, 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.124036

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.124036 2016
[29]

Presentstatusand future challenges of non-interferometric tests of collapse models.Nature Phys., 18(3):243–250, 2022

MatteoCarlesso, SandroDonadi, LucaFerialdi, MauroPaternostro, HendrikUlbricht, andAngeloBassi. Presentstatusand future challenges of non-interferometric tests of collapse models.Nature Phys., 18(3):243–250, 2022. doi:10.1038/s41567- 021-01489-5

work page doi:10.1038/s41567- 2022
[30]

Sigl and G

G. Sigl and G. Raffelt. General kinetic description of relativistic mixed neutrinos.Nucl. Phys. B, 406:423–451, 1993. doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90175-O

work page doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90175-o 1993
[31]

Cosmic microwave background polarization.AnnalsPhys., 246:49–85, 1996

Arthur Kosowsky. Cosmic microwave background polarization.AnnalsPhys., 246:49–85, 1996. doi:10.1006/aphy.1996.0020

work page doi:10.1006/aphy.1996.0020 1996
[32]

Bavarsad, M

E. Bavarsad, M. Haghighat, Z. Rezaei, R. Mohammadi, I. Motie, and M. Zarei. Generation of circular polarization of the CMB. Phys. Rev. D, 81:084035, 2010. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.084035

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.81.084035 2010
[33]

Photon-graviton scattering: A new way to detect anisotropic gravitational waves?Phys

Nicola Bartolo, Ahmad Hoseinpour, Giorgio Orlando, Sabino Matarrese, and Moslem Zarei. Photon-graviton scattering: A new way to detect anisotropic gravitational waves?Phys. Rev. D, 98(2):023518, 2018. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.023518

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.023518 2018
[34]

CMB Circular and B-mode Polarization from New Interactions.Phys

Nicola Bartolo, Ahmad Hoseinpour, Sabino Matarrese, Giorgio Orlando, and Moslem Zarei. CMB Circular and B-mode Polarization from New Interactions.Phys. Rev. D, 100(4):043516, 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.043516

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.043516 2019
[35]

CMBVmodes from photon- photon forward scattering revisited.Phys

Ahmad Hoseinpour, Moslem Zarei, Giorgio Orlando, Nicola Bartolo, and Sabino Matarrese. CMBVmodes from photon- photon forward scattering revisited.Phys. Rev. D, 102(6):063501, 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.063501

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.063501 2020
[36]

Non-Markovian open quantum system approach to the early Universe: Damping of gravitational waves by matter.Phys

Moslem Zarei, Nicola Bartolo, Daniele Bertacca, Angelo Ricciardone, and Sabino Matarrese. Non-Markovian open quantum system approach to the early Universe: Damping of gravitational waves by matter.Phys. Rev. D, 104(8):083508, 2021. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.104.083508

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.083508 2021
[37]

Stephen L. Adler. Quantum Theory as an Emergent Phenomenon: The Statistical Mechanics of Matrix Models as the Precursor of Quantum Field Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2004. ISBN 9780521833942

2004
[38]

N. Gisin. Stochastic quantum dynamics and relativity.Helv. Phys. Acta, 62:363–371, 1989

1989
[39]

MarkovProcessesinHilbertSpaceandContinuousSpontaneous Localization of Systems of Identical Particles.Phys

GianCarloGhirardi, PhilipM.Pearle, andAlbertoRimini. MarkovProcessesinHilbertSpaceandContinuousSpontaneous Localization of Systems of Identical Particles.Phys. Rev. A, 42:78–79, 1990. doi:10.1103/PhysRevA.42.78

work page doi:10.1103/physreva.42.78 1990
[40]

Pearle and E

Philip M. Pearle and E. Squires. Bound state excitation, nucleon decay experiments, and models of wave function collapse. Phys. Rev. Lett., 73:1–5, 1994. doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.73.1

work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.73.1 1994
[41]

Singh, and Hendrik Ulbricht

Angelo Bassi, Kinjalk Lochan, Seema Satin, Tejinder P. Singh, and Hendrik Ulbricht. Models of Wave-function Collapse, Underlying Theories, and Experimental Tests.Rev. Mod. Phys., 85:471–527, 2013. doi:10.1103/RevModPhys.85.471

work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.85.471 2013
[42]

Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems

GianCarlo Ghirardi, Alberto Rimini, and Tullio Weber. Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Physical Review D, 34(2):470–491, 1986. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.34.470

work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.34.470 1986