Energy created out of nothing in Objective collapse theory?

[KleinMoretti]

TL;DR Summary

energy conservation is violated by objective collapse theory, does that mean energy is created in the process

so i was reading about Objective collapse theory and i found out that apparently one of the main problems/criticisms these theories have is they violate conservation of energy.

From wikipedia "According to collapse theories, energy is not conserved, also for isolated particles. More precisely, in the GRW, CSL and DP models the kinetic energy increases at a constant rate, which is small but non-zero."

My question is if that means that means that energy can be created in these kind of theories.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objec...f_the_principle_of_the_conservation_of_energy

 

[PeterDonis]

From wikipedia

Please give a reference to the specific Wikipedia article.

 

[KleinMoretti]

Please give a reference to the specific Wikipedia article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objec...f_the_principle_of_the_conservation_of_energy

 

[renormalize]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objec...f_the_principle_of_the_conservation_of_energy

This article states:
"In collapse theories, the Schrödinger equation is supplemented with additional nonlinear and stochastic terms (spontaneous collapses) which localize the wave function in space."
Therefore "objective collapse" is not standard quantum physics, and should be in "Beyond the Standard Models".

 

[PeterDonis]

"objective collapse" is not standard quantum physics, and should be in "Beyond the Standard Models".

Yes, good point. Thread has been moved.

 

[KleinMoretti]

Yes, good point. Thread has been moved.

so objective collapse is not considered a mainstream interpretation of qm?

 

[PeterDonis]

My question is if that means that means that energy can be created in these kind of theories.

As already noted, these theories are speculative and have not been tested experimentally. So we don't have any actual evidence of non-conservation of energy.

Theoretically speaking, I would say that if a model does not conserve energy (I have not looked at the papers referenced in the Wikipedia article in any detail so I can't say how robust that claim is), that is a sign that the model is not complete and is best viewed as an approximation to some more fundamental model which does conserve energy. In other words, "objective collapse" models, if they don't conserve energy, must be leaving something out.

 

[PeterDonis]

so objective collapse is not considered a mainstream interpretation of qm?

The models you are referring to are not interpretations of QM, they are different theories; they change the dynamics so it is not the same as standard QM. Interpretations of QM are interpretations of standard QM, with the standard QM dynamics.

 

[KleinMoretti]

The models you are referring to are not interpretations of QM, they are different theories; they change the dynamics so it is not the same as standard QM. Interpretations of QM are interpretations of standard QM, with the standard QM dynamics.

oh since its listed under the minor interpretations page in wikipedia I thought it was considered one

 

[PeterDonis]

since its listed under the minor interpretations page in wikipedia

Again, please reference the specific article.

 

[KleinMoretti]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minority_interpretations_of_quantum_mechanics#Collapse_theories

sorry you are right, it does say that objective collapse theories are extensions rather than interpretations.

 

[pines-demon]

Aren't many-worlds and Bohm theory also extensions ? You have to add elements that are not in Copenhagen interpretation (this is disputable for MWI but it is very clear in Bohm's). The only difference here with objective collapse is that objective collapse is falsifiable.

 

[PeterDonis]

Aren't many-worlds and Bohm theory also extensions ?

No; both use the same or equivalent math to basic QM and make the same experimental predictions.

You have to add elements that are not in Copenhagen interpretation (this is disputable for MWI but it is very clear in Bohm's).

It's not just "disputable" in MWI, it's false. The "worlds" in the MWI aren't added in; they are just a different name for things that are already there. If anything, MWI removes an element that is in basic QM, because it says there is never any collapse; but it still allows an apparent collapse, so even that is not a change in the math or predictions.

In the Bohmian interpretation, the hidden and unobservable particle positions are added, yes, but they are specified to have just the right distribution to match the predictions of basic QM.

The only difference here with objective collapse is that objective collapse is falsifiable.

If by "falsifiable" you mean "makes different testable predictions from standard QM", then yes.

 

[pines-demon]

No; both use the same or equivalent math to basic QM and make the same experimental predictions.


In the Bohmian interpretation, the hidden and unobservable particle positions are added, yes, but they are specified to have just the right distribution to match the predictions of basic QM.


If by "falsifiable" you mean "makes different testable predictions from standard QM", then yes.

You understood correctly.