There Are No Goals To Wander To

Tejinder Singh

Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Homi Bhabha Road, Mumbai 400005, India

ABSTRACT
We argue that space and space-time emerge as a consequence of dynamical collapse of
the wave function of macroscopic objects. We live in an approximate universe. At the
fundamental level, everything is everywhere all the time: there are no goals to wander to.

I. SPACE-TIME IS NOT THE PERFECT ARENA FOR QUANTUM THEORY

Space-time is absolute, in conventional classical physics. Its geometry is determined dy-

namically by the distribution of classical objects in the universe. However, the underlying
space-time manifold is an absolute given, providing the arena in which material bodies and
fields exist. The same classical space-time arena is carried over to quantum mechanics and
to quantum field theory, and it works beautifully there too. Well, almost! But not quite.
In this essay we propose the thesis that the troubles of quantum theory arise because of the
illegal carry-over of this classical arena. By troubles we mean the quantum measurement
problem, the spooky action at a distance and the peculiar nature of quantum non-locality,
the so-called problem of time in quantum theory, the extreme dependence of the theory on
its classical limit, and the physical meaning of the wave function [1]. We elaborate on these
in the next section. Then, in Section III, we propose that the correct arena for quantum
theory is a non-commutative space-time: here there are no troubles. Classical space-time
emerges as an approximation, as a consequence of dynamical collapse of the wave function.
When quantum theory is viewed on the non-commutative space-time, there is no notion of
distance, no spooky action at a distance, no mysterious probabilities. ‘Everything is ev-
erywhere all the time’. There is nowhere to wander from; there is nowhere to wander to.
Wandering is an emergent property of the approximate universe.

II. QUANTUM THEORY IS THE TRUTH BUT NOT THE WHOLE TRUTH

Let us accept as given, the universe with its terrestrial physics laboratories, planets, stars,
galaxies, and the classical absolute background of space and time. When we treat the micro-
scopic world according to the laws of quantum mechanics, against this given background, we
have a theory which agrees marvellously with every experiment that has been done so far to
test it. Even in the macroscopic world, the theory exhibits many collective phenomena such
as superconductivity, superfluidity, and Bose-Einstein condensation. However, as is well-

1
known, despite its great success, there are some features of the theory that many physicists
find tentative, and/or unsatisfactory. We recall these briefly, in the next few paragraphs.
• The theory has not yet been experimentally tested in all parts of the pa-
rameter space: The principle of linear superposition is a central tenet of quantum theory,
and is famously shown to hold in the double slit experiment with photons and with electrons.
It has been experimentally shown to hold also for heavier particles such as neutrons, and
atoms, and molecules. But what about heavier composite systems such as macromolecules or
even larger objects, say nano-particles, or silicon clusters? Technology poses great challenge
to matter-wave interferometry experiments, or any other kind of experiments, which aim to
test the superposition of position states for mesoscopic objects. The largest macromolecule
for which superposition in an interference experiment has been shown to hold, has a mass of
about 10,000 atomic mass units [2]. On the other hand, in the macroscopic classical world,
position superposition does not seem to hold: a chair is never seen here and there at the
same time. The smallest objects for which such classical behaviour is known to hold for
sure, have a mass of about a microgram, which is about 1018 atomic mass units. Now it
could well be that this absence of macroscopic superposition is caused by environmental
decoherence, in a many-worlds scenario. Or it could be explained by Bohmian mechanics
or some other interpretation / reformulation of quantum theory. But how can we be sure
that this is not a result of new physics: the possibility that linear superposition is not an
exact but an approximate principle? With superposition lasting for enormously long times
for small particles such as electrons and atoms, but becoming progressively short-lived for
heavier objects, until it becomes extremely short-lived for macroscopic objects such as chairs
and tables. The only way to settle whether or not there is new physics is to do experiments
in a decoherence free environment. These experiments are extremely challenging, and are
being pursued in many laboratories that exploit frontline technology [3]. Between 10,000
a.m.u. and 1018 a.m.u. there is an experimentally untested desert spanning fourteen orders
of magnitude, where there is a question mark on the validity of the superposition principle.
[Note that collective internal states such as in superconductors and BECs do not qualify as
experimental tests of superposition in the present context, because these ‘one-particle type’
states are not the Schrödinger cat states one is looking to create].
• The quantum measurement problem: When a quantum system, which is in a
superposition of eigenstates of an observable, interacts with a classical measuring apparatus,
why does it end up in being just one of those eigenstates? What causes this breakdown
of superposition and the so-called collapse of the wave function, in apparent violation of
the Schrödinger equation? And what systems qualify to be called a classical measuring
apparatus? Quantitatively speaking, how large must a quantum system be, before it can
be called classical? And why is the collapse random, even though the Schrödinger equation
is deterministic? Where do probabilities come from, in a deterministic theory, where initial

2
conditions are perfectly well-defined? Standard quantum theory has no answers. Do these
unanswered questions call for new physics? Maybe! [4].
• The peculiar nature of quantum non-locality : Consider a pair of quantum
particles A and B, in an entangled state, which start off close by, and fly off in opposite
directions to get very, very far from each other. Perhaps so far that they travel for billions of
light years while remaining in an entangled state. If a measurement is made say on A, causing
its state to collapse, it instantly and acausally influences the state of B, as if A and B were
together a physical structure like a rigid body. This is the non-local quantum correlation,
the infamous spooky action at a distance [5]. And it has been confirmed by experiments [6–
8]. The measurement on A influences the state of B, even though B is outside the light-cone
of A [space-like separation]. Of course the measurement on A cannot be used to transfer
information to B faster than light (no superluminal signalling) [9]. This is the microcausality
condition: quantum commutators vanish outside the light-cone. Is non-locality a problem?
For many physicists, it is not a problem, because special relativity is not violated. This is
how quantum physics is, they say. For other physicists, which includes the present author,
quantum non-locality is one of the greatest mysteries of physics. It challenges cherished
and long-held notions of locality and separability. How does B ‘know’ that a measurement
has been made on A? Undoubtedly, the collapse aspect of quantum theory is oblivious to
physical distance [10].
•The problem of time in quantum theory : The time that appears in quantum the-
ory is part of a classical space-time, whose geometry is determined by macroscopic classical
bodies, according to the laws of general relativity. But these classical bodies are a limiting
case of quantum theory. In their absence [for instance in the very early universe, soon after
the big bang] there would be no classical space-time geometry. If there are only quantum
matter fields in the entire universe, the gravitational field they produce would also possess
quantum fluctuations. These fluctuations in turn destroy the underlying space-time mani-
fold, rendering it physically meaningless. This is the essence of the Einstein hole argument:
a classical metric field must overlie the space-time manifold, in order to allow a physical
interpretation of the point structure of the manifold [11]. How then does one describe quan-
tum dynamics of quantum objects if the universe is not dominated by macroscopic objects,
and does not possess a classical space-time manifold? As a matter of principle one ought
to be able to describe the dynamics under such circumstances. It therefore follows that
there must exist an equivalent reformulation of quantum theory which does not depend on
classical time [12].
• The extreme dependence of the theory on its classical limit: Classical me-
chanics is a limiting case of quantum mechanics. Yet, in order to arrive at the canonical
quantum theory, one must first know the classical theory. One must know the classical con-
figuration and momentum degrees of freedom, its Lagrangian, its Hamiltonian, its Poisson

3
brackets. Then, employing an ad hoc [albeit highly successful] recipe, the Poisson brackets
are replaced by the canonical commutation relations of quantum theory. This dependence
of the quantum theory on its classical limit is unsatisfactory. It is as if we have a set of
quantum recipes; rather than a theory constructed from first principles. There ought to exist
a construction / derivation of quantum theory which does not depend on its own classical
limit.
•The physical meaning of the wave function: In order to illustrate the difficulty,
let us consider the double slit experiment with electrons. An electron, supposedly behaving
like a localised particle before it leaves the electron gun, spreads like a wave after leaving
the gun. The wave passes through both the slits, the two secondary wavelets interfere
with each other, until the electron reaches the screen and randomly collapses to a point
on the screen. But wait a moment! What is this wave a wave of? In order to describe
the interference pattern, one must consider the ‘wave’ to be the wave function (i.e. the
so-called probability amplitude) and superpose the complex wave functions representing the
two wavelets. But how could the complex wave function live on real physical space, and pass
through the slits, and behave as if it were a wave? The wave function in fact lives in Hilbert
space, not in physical space. To save the phenomenon, the wave is sometimes said to be a
probability wave. But of course we know that probabilities to do not interfere, probability
amplitudes do. And if it is a probability wave, what physical meaning can we ascribe to the
wave function? This bizarre state of affairs led Feynman to famously assert that nobody
understands quantum mechanics. We have an extraordinarily successful theory, but we have
a rather poor idea what actually is going on out there.
To understand what is going on, we take the holistic view that all these problems described
above must have a common resolution. Quantum theory is not the whole truth. It is an
approximation to a deeper theory. A resolution to its problems does exist, and when we push
the proposed resolution to its logical conclusion, we are confronted with a new conception
of space and time. Space and time, as we know them, are emergent, and result from
dynamical collapse of the wave function. Fundamentally, space-time is non-commutative,
and its geometry is a non-commutative geometry.

III. THE WHOLE TRUTH IS THAT QUANTUM THEORY IS APPROXIMATE

• A possible resolution of the quantum measurement problem: There have of

course been various proposed solutions for the measurement problem, which result from a
reinterpretation or mathematical reformulation of quantum theory. These include the many-
worlds interpretation, Bohmian mechanics, consistent histories, amongst others. Since they
make the same experimental predictions as quantum theory, it really becomes a matter of
taste as to which one is preferred over the other [3].

4
 On the other hand, consider the possibility that quantum theory actually breaks down in
the domain of measurement, and is not the right theory to describe the interaction of a quan-
tum system with a measuring apparatus. Maybe there is a more general universal dynamics,
which includes a stochastic element responsible for the randomness, and which reduces to
quantum mechanics for microscopic systems, and to classical mechanics for macroscopic sys-
tems. In the micro- limit, the stochastic aspect is extremely negligible, and in the macro-
limit it is so significant that the dynamics looks like classical dynamics.
Any attempt to generalise the Schrödinger equation must obey severe constraints, if it
has to solve the measurement problem, without contradicting the outstanding experimental
success of the Schrödinger equation. The new dynamics must be non-linear so that it causes
breakdown of superposition during a measurement. The non-linear aspect must be random
in nature, so that outcomes of measurement are random, and also because deterministic
non-linearities lead to superluminal signalling, which we wish to avoid. The new dynamics
has to be non-unitary, in order that the system is driven to one outcome; yet the non-unitary
evolution must be norm-preserving, so that probability is conserved. The universal dynamics
must also possess an amplification mechanism, so that the non-linearity is negligible for small
masses, and becomes progressively more significant for larger masses.
Remarkably enough, such a dynamics does exist, and was proposed many years ago
by Ghirardi, Rimini, Weber and Pearle [13–17]. It is known as Continuous Spontaneous
Localisation [CSL]. It proposes that the wave function of every elementary particle (let
us assume it to be the nucleon) undergoes a spontaneous collapse at the rate λ, and gets
localised in physical space to a region of size rC . Between every two collapses, the wave
function follows the usual Schrödinger evolution. λ and rC are two new constants of nature,
which in the CSL model are assumed to take the values

λ ∼ 10−17 sec−1 ; rC ∼ 10−5 cm (1)

The wave function of a composite object consisting of N nucleons collapses at the rate
N λ: this is the desired amplification mechanism. The CSL effect is mathematically de-
scribed by a stochastic non-linear modification of the Schrödinger equation which satisfies
the constraints mentioned above. CSL provides a solution of the measurement problem,
explains the classical nature of macroscopic objects, and explains the Born probability rule,
by converting linear superposition into an approximate principle. The theory makes predic-
tions for experiments, which differ from the predictions of quantum theory, in the currently
untested mesoscopic domain. Ongoing laboratory experiments are at present in an exciting
and crucial phase, and could verify or rule out CSL in the next few years [3, 18–21].
A serious limitation of the CSL model is that it is non-relativistic, and dedicated efforts
to make a relativistic version face serious difficulties. And perhaps for good reason. We will
argue below that collapse and relativity are incompatible, and the non-locality induced by

5
collapse can be meaningfully understood only in a non-commutative space-time obeying a
generalised Lorentz invariance.
• Collapse models are phenomenological: what is their fundamental origin? :
Another limitation of dynamical collapse models, of which CSL is the most advanced, is that
they are purely phenomenological, having been designed for the express purpose of solving
the quantum measurement problem. A more fundamental theory would derive the CSL
model from some underlying first principles. A beautiful attempt in this direction has been
made in the theory of Trace Dynamics [TD] developed by Adler and collaborators [22–24].
TD is a Poincaré invariant classical dynamics theory in which the fundamental canonical de-
grees of freedom are matrices whose elements are complex valued Grassmann variables. One
constructs the Lagrangian and Hamiltonian dynamics of this classical theory in the usual
way, and the configuration and momentum variables qi and pi , which are matrices (equiva-
lently operators), all obey arbitrary commutation relations with each other. Nonetheless, as
a result of a global unitary invariance, the theory possesses the remarkable conserved charge
P
C̃ = i [qi , pi ] known as the Adler-Millard charge. This charge, which has the dimensions
of action, is unique to matrix dynamics [it would be trivially zero in point particle classical
mechanics] and plays a central role in the emergence of quantum theory and CSL from TD.
Assuming TD to be the underlying theory which we do not directly observe, one constructs
its equilibrium statistical thermodynamics. As a consequence of the equipartition of the
Adler-Millard charge, the canonical equilibrium average of each of the commutators in this
charge satisfies the relation [qi , pi ] = i~: this is how the quantum commutation relations
emerge without having to resort to the classical limit of quantum theory. And amazingly
enough, the thermodynamic approximation to TD turns out to be the Heisenberg dynamics
(equivalently Schrödinger dynamics) of quantum theory. In this sense quantum theory is an
emergent phenomenon. Next, when one considers the ever-present statistical fluctuations
[Brownian motion] of the Adler-Millard charge about equilibrium, one obtains, instead of
the Schrödinger equation, a stochastic non-linear generalisation of the Schrödinger equation,
which has the same structure as the CSL model and which solves the measurement problem.
It is rather elegant that quantum theory is the thermodynamic approximation to a deeper
theory, and the collapse inducing non-linear modification originates from fluctuations about
equilibrium.
• A possible resolution of the problem of time: Trace Dynamics takes an external
classical space-time as given. However, as we have argued above, there ought to exist an
equivalent reformulation of quantum theory which does not refer to an external classical
time. A generalisation of TD enables us to arrive at such a reformulation. The starting
point for this generalisation is the proposal that at a more fundamental level, physical laws
should be invariant under general coordinate transformations of non-commuting coordinates.
Amazingly, this generalisation of Einstein’s general covariance principle provides a path from

6
classical dynamics to quantum dynamics. We first treat the simpler case of a ‘Minkowski’
non-commuting space-time, with coordinates which are now operators (t̂, x̂), possessing the
non-commutative metric
ds2 = T r dŝ2 ≡ T r [c2 dt̂2 − dx̂2 ] (2)

with the operators (t̂.x̂, y,̂ẑ) satisfying arbitrary commutation relations, in the spirit of trace
dynamics. Matter and space-time degrees of freedom are now being treated at par. Tr
stands for the ordinary matrix trace, and the proper time s, which we call Trace Time, plays
a very important role in what follows. In this space-time, because it is non-commutative,
there is no point structure or light-cone structure, nor a notion of spatial distance or tem-
poral interval. Nonetheless, this metric is invariant under Lorentz transformations of the
non-commuting operator coordinates, and one can construct a Poincaré invariant classical
dynamics for matter degrees of freedom, which generalises special relativity, and which we
call non-commutative special relativity [25]. The canonical degrees of freedom now include,
apart from the position-momentum pair (q̂, p̂), also the energy-time pair (t̂, Ê), and the
generalised Adler-Millard charge includes also the commutator [t̂i , Êi ] for every degree of
freedom. Evolution is described with respect to trace time s. Following trace dynamics, one
constructs the equilibrium statistical thermodynamics of the underlying non-commutative
relativity, and obtains the canonical quantum commutation relations, along with the com-
mutation relation [t̂, Ê] = i~. It is important to note that at this emergent equilibrium level,
the configuration variables, including the space-time degrees of freedom (t̂.x̂, y,̂ẑ), all com-
mute with each other, although they continue to be operators. The Generalised Quantum
Dynamics [GQD] which we obtain satisfies the generalised Schrödinger equation

dΨ
i~ = HΨ(s) (3)
ds

Evolution is given by trace time s, and the configuration variables include the operator time
t̂ as well. This is the sought for reformulation of quantum theory which does not refer to
classical time [26]. There is no background classical space-time, with the line element still
being given by (2).

To show that this reformulation is equivalent to quantum theory, we must first recover
the classical universe with its classical space-time and classical distribution of macroscopic
bodies. To do this, we bring on the scene the statistical fluctuations of the Adler-Millard
charge, which result in a stochastic non-linear modification of the GQD given by (3). Fur-
thermore, now the space-time degrees of freedom (t̂.x̂, y,̂ẑ) no longer commute with each
other. Consider the very early universe, where there are present tiny energy-density fluc-
tuations in the matter degrees of freedom, as well as fluctuations in the non-commutative
space-time geometry. As these fluctuations grow, the non-linearity in the GQD becomes
significant, resulting in a CSL like effect: matter clumps into localised classical configura-

7
tions. This is accompanied by, again because of the non-linearity, the localisation of the
space-time degrees of freedom (t̂.x̂, y,̂ẑ) which can hence be mapped to c-numbers, and to a
classical space-time (t, x, y, z) [27]. The collapse of the wave function is responsible for the
emergence of classical macroscopic bodies, and also for the emergence of classical space and
time. Because the original line-element (2) is Lorentz invariant, the emergent line-element is
the standard Minkowski space-time. It is rather intuitive and convincing that spontaneous
collapse of the wave function, which localises macroscopic objects such as stars and galaxies
on a grand scale across the entire universe, also gives rise to space: space is that which is
between collapsed objects. No collapse, no space. Know collapse, know space!. Not only
does matter curve space-time, the spontaneous localisation of matter gives rise to space-time
in the first place.
Given this classical background, one can show that the reformulation as GQD is equivalent
to quantum theory. One can consider a micro-system either according to the generalised
trace dynamics with (2) and arrive at (3) or one can consider it according to standard trace
dynamics on a classical space-time, and arrive at the Schrödinger equation. The two are
equivalent because the operators (t̂.x̂, y,̂ẑ) in the GQD commute at the emergent level, and
can be mapped to the ordinary (t, x, y, z). And trace time can be mapped to ordinary proper
time [28].

• A possible resolution of the non-locality puzzle: Given the machinery at hand,

we can resolve the puzzle of non-locality described earlier. When a measurement is made on
A to collapse its wave function, the statistical fluctuations of the Adler-Millard charge kick
on, and the GQD becomes stochastic and non-linear. The space-time operators (t̂.x̂, y,̂ẑ)
associated with the quantum system (AB) no longer commute, and cannot be mapped to
the (t, x, y, z) of the background space-time. Thus, the non-linear GQD, although it is
invariant under Lorenz transformations of the non-commutative line element (2), is not
invariant under the Lorentz transformations of standard Minkowski space. Thus, collapse
and special relativity are incompatible with each other. GQD can be mapped to ordinary
quantum theory and is compatible with special relativity, but when the collapse inducing
statistical fluctuations are added on to GQD, it is not Lorentz invariant and hence there
is no relativistic theory of collapse. [In the non-relativistic limit there is an absolute time,
and no need to worry about Lorentz invariance, so the CSL effect can be modelled using
a random stochastic field]. We now understand why quantum theory gels so nicely with
special relativity, but does not gel well when collapse is included: we are confronted with
the spooky action at a distance. The non-local quantum correlation is induced by collapse,
and hence can be correctly described only in the underlying non-commutative space-time
(which is Lorentz invariant). In this description, since there is no notion of spatial distance
between A and B, there is simply no action at a distance. Nor is there any question of an
influence travelling from A to B: travelling requires distance, and here there is no distance in

8
the first place. Micro-causality and quantum non-locality can co-exist: the former belongs
to standard quantum theory, the latter belongs to the stochastic non-linear modification of
standard quantum theory. This latter modification is not consistent with special relativity,
but is consistent with non-commutative special relativity [29].
• What is the physical meaning of the wave function? : Now we have an answer to
Feynman’s remark that no one understands quantum mechanics. No one understands quan-
tum mechanics because space-time is not the best arena for describing quantum mechanics.
Non-commutative space-time is. Let us revisit the double slit experiments with electrons.
We have trouble, understandably, in thinking of the complex-valued wave function acting
as a wave, interfering with itself in physical space: this makes no sense at all. However,
the truth is that, fundamentally the wave function lives in the associated non-commutative
line-element (2) of the electron. The complex-valued state of the electron belongs to the
Hilbert space of the generalised (matrix) trace dynamics, which includes a non-commutative
space-time. It is in no need of classical space-time for its description: the classical space-time
is produced by collapsed classical objects, and is approximate. It creates problems when
we try to understand quantum mechanics. But the underlying Hilbert space encompasses
matter states as well as states of space-time. The troublesome distinction between space
and the Hilbert space of quantum theory has been removed. But via the trace time s, we do
have a very useful notion of time at hand. It is as if time is more fundamental than space.
In the classical limit, we can attach classical observers to inertial frames, so the coordinate
time t plays a useful role as time. But there is no such thing as a quantum observer, so the
operator time t̂ is of no use to observers.

IV. THERE ARE NO GOALS TO WANDER TO

There has been much talk lately [30], of space, and perhaps space-time, as emergent from
quantum entanglement. But it would seem that this is hard to achieve within the confines of
standard quantum theory. Quantum entanglement must be lost, to arrive at classical space.
But to lose entanglement, we need collapse. And collapse perhaps requires us to go beyond
quantum theory, and modify it.
When we go to that ‘beyond’, we find that there is a new world out there. Both quantum
theory, and space-time, are emergent phenomena. They emerge from the generalised trace
dynamics. In the new world, nothing commutes with anything. Nothing is local, neither
in space, nor in time. Locality and separability are approximations of our present day
universe. Spontaneous collapse is omnipotent and at play, making the universe look like
it does. However, appearances can be deceptive. Deep down, if we look very carefully,
everything is everywhere all the time, in a manner of speaking. Wandering is a property of
the approximate universe. It is an illusion.

9
 TECHNICAL ENDNOTES

Spontaneous Localisation [14–17]

Given a system of N particles, with a wave function belonging to the Hilbert space, its dy-
namics satisfies the following properties. During its evolution, the wave function undergoes
repeated spontaneous collapse at random times, mathematically described as:

Ln (x)ψt (x1 , x2 , . . . xN )
ψt (x1 , x2 , . . . xN ) −→ (4)
kLn (x)ψt (x1 , x2 , . . . xN )k

Here, Ln (x) is the so-called jump operator, which is defined as

1 2 /2r 2
Ln (x) = e−(qn −x) C (5)
(πrC2 )3/4

which localises the n-th particle to the spatial location x in a region of size rC , with qn
being the position operator of the n-th particle. The probability for this jump to position x
by the n-th particle is given by:

pn (x) ≡ kLn (x)ψt (x1 , x2 , . . . xN )k2 (6)

The jumps are assumed to occur according to a Poisson process, with a frequency λ. Thus λ
and rC are the two new parameters of the model. Between any two jumps the wave function
undergoes normal Schrödinger evolution. The mass density of the n-th particle in physical
space is defined as
Z
(n)
ρt (xn ) ≡ mn d3 x1 . . . d3 xn−1 d3 xn+1 . . . d3 xN |ψt (x1 , x2 , . . . xN )|2 (7)

These then are the axioms of the model of spontaneous collapse. It is a universal dynamics,
to which quantum mechanics and classical mechanics are limiting approximations. There is
no need to refer to any classical measuring apparatus, or environment, or measurement, or
macroscopic world. Measurement is just a special case of spontaneous collapse.
The beauty of spontaneous collapse is the natural manner in which the amplification
mechanism comes about. In a bound system of N particles, any one particle undergoing
collapse causes the entire system to collapse. Thus the effective collapse rate for the system
is N λ, which is an enormous amplification. If the individual particle is a nucleon, then the
collapse rate can become enormously high for a macroscopic system, because N is very large.
Thus macroscopic objects stay effectively localised in space, and this explains their classical
behaviour and solves the measurement problem.
Mathematically, spontaneous collapse can be described as a continuous process, through

10
a stochastic non-linear modification of the Schrödinger equation:
 √ Z 
γ
Z
i γ 2
dψt = − Hdt + dx(M (x) − hM (x)it )dWt (x) − dx (M (x) − hM (x)it ) dt ψt
~ m0 2m20

Here, the first term describes the usual Schrödinger evolution, with H being the quantum
Hamiltonian. The second and third terms are the new terms which cause dynamical col-
lapse. The new terms are non-unitary, yet they maintain the norm-preserving nature of
the evolution. m0 is a reference mass, conventionally chosen to be the mass of the nucleon.
M (x) is the mass density operator:
X
M (x) = mj Nj (x), (8)
j
Z
Nj (x) = dyg(y − x)ψj† (y)ψj (y), (9)

ψj† (y) and ψj (y) are the creation and annihilation operators, respectively, for a particle j at
the location y. The smearing function g(x) is defined as

1 −x 2 /2r 2
g(x) = √
3 e C (10)
2πrC

The collapse inducing stochasticity in the CSL model is described by Wt (x) which is an
ensemble of independent Wiener processes, one for each point in space. The constant γ is
related to the rate parameter λ as

γ
λ = . (11)
(4πrC2 )3/2

11
 REFERENCES

[1] S. Weinberg, The trouble with quantum mechanics (New York Review of Books, 2017).
[2] M. Arndt and K. Hornberger, Nature Physics 10, 271 (2014).
[3] A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh, and H. Ulbricht, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 471 (2013).
[4] N. Gisin, (2017), arXiv:1701.08300 [quant-ph].
[5] G. Musser, Spooky Action at a Distance ((Farrar, Straus and Giroux), 2015).
[6] B. Hensen et al., Nature 526, 682 (2015).
[7] L. K. Shalm et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 250402 (2015).
[8] J. Handsteiner et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.118.060401 (2017).
[9] G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Lettere Al Nuovo Cimento 27, 293 (1980).
[10] J. S. Bell, Physics Reports 137, 7 (1986).
[11] S. Carlip, Rep. Prog. Phys. 64, 885 (2001).
[12] T. P. Singh, Bulg. J. Phys. 33, 217 (2006 [arXiv:gr-qc/0510042]).
[13] P. Pearle, Phys. Rev. D 13, 857 (1976).
[14] G. C. Ghirardi, P. Pearle, and A. Rimini, Phys. Rev. A 42, 78 (1990).
[15] G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Phys. Rev. D 34, 470 (1986).
[16] P. Pearle, Phys. Rev. A 39, 2277 (1989).
[17] A. Bassi and G. C. Ghirardi, Phys. Rep. 379, 257 (2003).
[18] M. Carlesso, A. Bassi, P. Falferi, and A. Vinante, Phys. Rev. D 94, 124036 (2016).
[19] A. Vinante, M. Bahrami, A. Bassi, O. Usenko, G. Wijts, and T. H. Oosterkamp, Phys. Rev.
Lett. 116, 090402 (2016).
[20] M. Bahrami, M. Paternostro, A. Bassi, and H. Ulbricht, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 210404 (2014).
[21] S. Bera, B. Motwani, T. P. Singh, and H. Ulbricht, Scientific Reports 5, 7664 (2015).
[22] S. L. Adler, Nucl. Phys. B 415, 195 (1994).
[23] S. L. Adler and A. C. Millard, Nucl. Phys. B 473, 199 (1996).
[24] S. L. Adler, Quantum theory as an emergent phenomenon (Cambridge University Press, Cam-
bridge, 2004) pp. xii+225.
[25] K. Lochan and T. P. Singh, Phys. Lett. A 375, 3747 (2011).
[26] K. Lochan, S. Satin, and T. P. Singh, Found. Phys. 42, 1556 (2012).
[27] T. P. Singh, in Re-thinking time at the interface of physics and philosophy, (arXiv:1210.81110),
edited by T. Filk and A. von Muller (Berlin-Heidelberg:Springer, 2015).
[28] T. P. Singh, arXiv:1701.09132 [quant-ph] (2017).
[29] S. Banerjee, S. Bera, and T. P. Singh, Int. J. Mod. Phys. 25, 1644005 (2016).
[30] R. Cowen, Nature 527, 290 (2015).

12