quantum foundations — interactive demo

What would actually tell unitary and collapse apart

No experiment distinguishes many-worlds from Bohmian mechanics or Copenhagen — they're the same physics, differently narrated. Objective collapse models are different: they modify the Schrödinger equation itself, and that difference is measurable.

The one axis that's actually testable

Every interpretation built on exact unitary evolution — many-worlds, Bohmian mechanics, relational QM, QBism, Copenhagen-without-collapse — predicts identical interference statistics. They differ only in the story attached to the same equations. Objective collapse models (GRW, CSL, Diósi-Penrose) are the one family that departs from the Schrödinger equation itself, adding a real stochastic term that should show up as interference decaying faster than ordinary environmental noise can explain.

The key mechanism is amplification with mass: for a rigid body of N nucleons held in superposition well beyond the model's coherence length rC, the collapse rate scales as

Γcollapse ≈ λ · N² · g(Δx / rC)

which is why a single atom never visibly collapses while a cat would — and why the frontier of these experiments is pushing to exactly the nanoparticle mass range where N² finally produces a rate big enough to beat vacuum and cooling noise.

Try it

Set a mass, a separation, and a collapse model, then compare the predicted interference visibility over time against pure unitary evolution.

isolated system · N nucleons Δx

N ≈ 1.0e6 nucleons

20 nm · rC = 100 nm

0.01 Hz · state-of-art vacuum + cooling

1 0 time (s)
unitary (incl. many-worlds) objective collapse

V at t=5s, unitary

V at t=5s, collapse

Further reading

  1. Dey, Barker, Datta — Testing Spontaneous Collapse Models with Coulomb Mediated Squeezing, arXiv:2604.21705 (2026)
  2. A Measurement-Like Test of CSL with a Reversible Nanoparticle Pointer, arXiv:2606.22707 (2026)
  3. Experimental Blueprint for Distinguishing Decoherence from Objective Collapse, arXiv:2512.02838 (2026)
  4. Nimmrichter et al. — matter-wave interferometry CSL bounds (2011), baseline for the mass/λ ranges used above