What hypothesis is being tested here? Is there any theory that predicts that large objects won't behave like waves if they are properly isolated from the environment?
It appears that these theories are not relativistic and claim that energy is not conserved. Therefore they will have significant trouble explaining almost all particle physics experiments.
From the perspective of a theoretical particle physicist these theories are also awkward because they try to fiddle with non-relativistic quantum mechanics like the Schrodinger equation. But that equation merely arises in the non-relativistic limit of the more fundamental relativistic quantum mechanics, more commonly known as quantum field theory. Therefore, if you want to probe the foundations of quantum theory then quantum field theory seems like a much better place to start.
As an analogy, these attempts sound like a nineteenth-century person trying to understand gravity starting from F = m g h rather than F = - G m1 m2 / r^2.
For these reasons I would not be supportive of significant funding for theoretical or experimental research in these collapse theories.
Saying that Schroedinger's equation is a non-relativistic limit is a bit misleading. The typical choice of Hilbert spaces, sure, is non-relativistic. But QFT and any other quantum theory, is basically Schroedinger's equation on a sufficiently weird Hilbert space (from second quantization, graphs, grids, or strings)
If you (and the cited wikipedia article a few comments up) mean i d/dt | psi > = H | psi > then sure, that might refer to a relativistic theory and in that sense my comment was imprecise. But showing that a given Hamiltonian is relativistic generally requires work, and I still think there is merit to my point that these theories seem to start 'at the wrong end'.
There are plenty of reasons to do this that don't distill just down to do they act as expected. One reason researchers do quantum experiments in macro-objects is it is significantly easier to measure. If they can show the glass bead can be put into quantum states in space it means they can now study quantum states via a glass bead instead of atoms, which are real hard to look at.
One can view it as a falsification experiment to quantum mechanics. Or in other terms to see what the range of applicability is. One doesn't alway know before where new physics is, most likely it is where one hasn't looked experimentally.
I often see the argument 'we should check because you never know' being used for supporting exotic science experiments. But I think it is too dogmatic.
Indeed, we have not tested experimentally whether launching andi999 into space will affect the muon g-2 anomalous magnetic moment. Although you might be very supportive of testing that hypothesis, I would sincerely doubt that it would lead to a discovery of new physics.
In the end this boils down to funding decisions for the sciences, which are invariably nuanced, difficult and political. Simply saying 'we should try because nobody else has' would convince only the most naive of funders.
I agree your suggested experiment shdnt be funded. I thought for the other one it is actually quite obvious. You have a quantum realm which has been confirmed by all experiments so far, and you have a classical world (objective trajectories), now it could be that there is a boundary where qm breaks down, or it could be that (when allowing for suitable coherence environments) that this never happens. I think you definitely shd try to push the (experimental) boundary on this one. Same like ppl check if Colombs law is really 1/r^2 (which is an even weaker case where one shd look).
I think the big thing is many humans cant wrap their mind around qm. Lots of people are like, its ok as long as it only applies to microscopic quantities but doing a big object would force them to confront reality more head on.
> I think the big thing is many humans cant wrap their mind around qm.
Especially physicists. As the joke goes, people who think they understand QM, don't.
The fact "infinitely many universes spawned infinitely frequently" is a serious take on explaining QM suggests everyone who has a casual explanation about all of this has missed a few things.
> What hypothesis is being tested here? Is there any theory that predicts that large objects won't behave like waves if they are properly isolated from the environment?
We can probably devise some interesting experiments when we have conscious human observers within the apparent independent wave function.
BTW, these fringe theories have no real place in modern QM. Nobody has demonstrated anything even remotely relevant to quantum mechanics in consciousness.
Here's what's science: have a hypothesis that makes predictions that confirm or falsify it, then carry out experiments to do so.
Here's what's not science: someone's subjective emotional opinion about what "has place" in science and what doesn't.
Also, Roger Penrose who recently WON A NOBEL PRIZE makes some very strong connections between QM and consciousness. Which you're clearly ignorant of.
So not only you're wrong about what science is, you're even factually wrong about what leading and awarded scientists believe and propose.
People like you, who decide what has "place" in science and what doesn't have called Einstein's Relativity "fake Jew science" back in the day, simply because (racism aside) they didn't like the complex implications of his theory.
Think hard if you actually care what science is, or you're looking to lazily identify easy enemies to call quacks based on keywords like "consciousness", despite you're clearly uninformed on the subject. An intellectually honest person in your place would take a step back and maybe even apologize.
I was a longtime scientist and have a publication record. I know what science is. I am intellectually honest. My area of study included quantum chemistry. I have researched all the work in consciousness and QM and so far, nobody has even the most basic of theories that woudl explain the data in a simpler way than existing, classical ones.
If you do some reading you'll see Hameroff (who cares about penrose) isn't operating in good faith.
I don't see your point about "fake jew science", relativity is very different from "the neural correlate of consciousness necessarily exploits quantum phenomena".
I'm not necessarily pushing for anything, but I'm saying if you have someone who can report what they observe on the other side of this experiment, it'll be a brand new component to extract data from.
As for the QM interpretations, honestly all of them are outrageous in their implications, if you truly analyze them.
- Copenhagen interpretation can't determine where to draw the line between quantum and classical, and yet says at that line the probability wave collapses. It also has non-local implications, without defining a timespace reference for this non-local effect (i.e. it says things like the wave collapses "everywhere" without describing mechanism for it, and it collapses "now" without noting that "now" has no meaning on universe-wide scale).
- Pilot wave and QFT have the same problems as Copenhagen.
- Superdeterminism decides cause and effect is just an illusion and everything is determined from initial conditions, but has no explanation for the elaborate cause-effect reality we observe at every moment.
- Many worlds requires literally infinite universe clones to spawn at every moment of time.
What's the purpose of human observers on either end? Just hook up some measurement devices and let them write the paper and publish it for other measuring devices to read.
Kidding aside, the overall point was putting macroscopic objects in superposition, be it mechanical or biological, might yield opportunity for new experiments.
