The GRW model takes a normalized wave function in . Between jumps it obeys the Schrodinger equation, , with the usual many-particle Hamiltonian operator, for example . Each particle has an independent Poisson process of collapse times with rate . Thus the total jump rate is , the mean wait is , and the jumping label is uniform on .
At a jump of particle , use the GRW localization operator
Its centre has probability density function . The post-jump quantum state is . The normalization is consistent because . The collapse times and labels have these state-independent rates; the centres depend on the wave function through the Born rule-like squared norm.
For precision about the stated spatial event, let . With , the GRW collapse-centre event probabilities are exactly
The last expression is defined only for . It includes the possibility that the next jump hits the same particle.
Write , and similarly . Put
with the same definitions for . The macroscopic separation and negligible packet tails make the two branches essentially orthogonal, so their interference contribution can be neglected. The first-event probability is therefore
The contribution is extremely small: its actual positions are within of , whereas centres in are within of , leaving a distance much larger than in the Gaussian. Packet-tail errors add to this Gaussian-tail error.
For the next-event calculation, two distinct labels have independent position densities within either product branch, giving factors . A repeated label instead gives , since both localization Gaussians multiply the same position variable. Consequently
These formulas, with , answer the spatial questions without an extra containment assumption. If the first event is dominated by the branch, they simplify to
Neglecting the term in this conditional expression requires it to be small relative to the retained first-event probability, not merely small in absolute value. The exact operator formulas above cover rare-event exceptions as well.
The intended GRW branch persistence versus geometric containment approximation is obtained if and contain essentially all the position mass of their corresponding branches. Then positions in have a Gaussian-centre margin of inside , so , while . This gives
For the Gaussian convention used here, the three-dimensional probability of a displacement exceeding is , an extremely small number. A first centre near also suppresses the branch relative to the branch by the very small ratio when the latter branch has appreciable weight. All particles are correlated with the same pointer alternative, so one localization selects the macroscopic branch even when the next particle label differs.
The literal PDF, however, only places the packet centres in ; it does not say that the packets themselves fit inside . Since it permits , the two numerical approximations just displayed do not follow for every allowed packet and region. For example, take all , let be a very small ball, and let be uniform on a ball of radius . Translate the other branch to a similarly small region at distance much larger than . Then
If these equal packet probabilities are denoted by and their repeated-label integral by , the next probability is
which approaches , not one, for large . Thus packet containment is needed for the stated near-region event to have the usual branch probabilities. The literal general answer is given by the integrals above.
The physical GRW amplification mechanism remains intact: with properly chosen macroscopic branch regions, spontaneous localization selects the alternatives with approximately the squared branch amplitudes and stabilizes the selected record, on a time scale . Gaussian tails are not exactly eliminated, so the persistence is approximate. The containment qualification concerns how the region is defined, rather than whether the dynamics selects a macroscopically separated branch.

Articles by others on the same topic (0)

There are currently no matching articles.