Bibliographic record
Abstract
A class of theories alternative to standard quantum mechanics, including that of Ghirardi et al ('GRWP'), postulates that when a quantum superposition becomes amplified to the point that the superposed states reach some level of 'macroscopic distinctness', then some non-quantum-mechanical principle comes into play and realizes one or other of the two macroscopic outcomes. Without specializing to any particular theory of this class, I ask how far such 'macrorealistic' theories are generically constrained, if one insists that the physical reduction process should respect Einstein locality, by the results of existing EPR-Bell experiments. I conclude that provided one does not demand that the prescription for reduction respects Lorentz invariance, at least some theories of this type, while in principle inevitably making some predictions that conflict with those of standard quantum mechanics, are not refuted by any existing experiment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.034 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".