The Role of Physical Data in Facilitating Wave Function Collapse

Entropy-Triggered Reduction (ETR): A Hypothesis for Wave Function Collapse and Its Implications Takao Koizumi Date: February 4, 2025 Contents 1 Abstract 3 2 Introduction 3 2.1 Background and Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 2.2 Existing Collapse Theories and Their Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.3 The Entropy-Triggered Reduction (ETR) Hypothesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.4 StructureofThisPaper ............................. 5 3 Theoretical Framework 5 3.1 Fundamental Assumptions of ETR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.2 Extended Nonlinear Lindblad Equation with Memory Effects . . . . . . . . . 6 3.3 Quantum Error Correction (QEC) and Threshold Modulation . . . . . . . . 6 3.4 Energy Dependence of Collapse Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 3.5 Summary of Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4 Empirical Consistency and Experimental Considerations 7 4.1 Empirical Consistency with Existing Experiments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 4.1.1 Quantum Eraser Experiments and Information Reversibility . . . . . 8 4.1.2 Role of Quantum Error Correction (QEC) in Delaying Decoherence . 8 4.1.3 Delayed Collapse and Memory Effects in Open Quantum Systems . . 8 4.2 Proposed Experimental Tests for ETR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 4.2.1 Experiment 1: QEC-Modulated Collapse Threshold . . . . . . . . . . 9 4.2.2 Experiment 2: Memory-Dependent Collapse in Long-Lived States . . 9 4.2.3 Experiment 3: Entropy-Triggered Coherence Suppression in Interferometry................................... 10 4.3 Considerations for Future Empirical Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.1 Distinguishing ETR from Alternative Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 4.3.2 Challenges in Experimental Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 4.4 Summary of Empirical Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 5 Comparison with Competing Theories 11 5.1 GRW Model: Spontaneous and Stochastic Collapse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1.1 Key Assumptions of GRW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1.2 Experimental Comparison: GRW vs. ETR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.1.3 Key Distinguishing Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2 Decoherence Theory: Smooth Loss of Quantum Coherence . . . . . . . . . . 12 5.2.1 Key Assumptions of Decoherence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 1 5.2.2 Experimental Comparison: Decoherence vs. ETR . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.2.3 Key Distinguishing Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3 Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI): No Collapse, Only Branching . . . . . . 13 5.3.1 Key Assumptions of MWI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3.2 Experimental Comparison: MWI vs. ETR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.3.3 Key Distinguishing Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 5.4 Summary of Testable Predictions and Experimental Outcomes . . . . . . . . 13 6 Data Analysis and Statistical Validation 14 6.1 Bayesian Inference for Parameter Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.2 Bootstrapping for Confidence Interval Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 6.3 Effect Size Quantification for QEC-Driven Collapse Suppression . . . . . . . 16 6.4 Entropy Growth Curve Fitting and Model Selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 7 Conclusion and Future Directions 17 7.1 Summary of Key Insights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 7.2 Open Questions and Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.3 Towards Large-Scale Quantum Computing Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.4 Implications for Future Experimental Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 7.5 ConcludingRemarks ............................... 19 2 1 Abstract We propose a novel theoretical framework—Entropy-Triggered Reduction (ETR)—which postulates that wave function collapse occurs when environmental entropy surpasses a critical threshold, Scrit. This hypothesis integrates quantum error correction (QEC), nonlinearity, memory effects, and energy-scale dependence, distinguishing it from traditional collapse models such as GRW, standard decoherence, and the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI). Key contributions of this work include: •Nonlinear Collapse Dynamics: We derive an extended nonlinear Lindblad-type equation incorporating temporal accumulation of entropy and feedback mechanisms. •Quantum Error Correction (QEC) Effects: We introduce a formalism in which QEC raises Scrit, thereby delaying collapse. •Energy-Dependent Collapse: Our model predicts that high-energy quantum states exhibit greater resilience to collapse due to entropy suppression mechanisms. •Experimental Consistency: We analyze how ETR aligns with results from quantum eraser experiments and outline testable predictions for future experimental validation. Although this paper primarily focuses on the theoretical aspects of ETR, we outline potential experimental tests using superconducting qubits, trapped ions, and optical interferometry. These experiments serve solely to validate the theoretical predictions of ETR. A dedicated experimental paper will be required for empirical verification. This framework presents a novel direction in quantum foundations, providing testable predictions for emerging quantum technologies. Keywords: Entropy-triggered reduction, wave function collapse, quantum error correction, entropy, nonlinearity, memory effects, quantum eraser 2 Introduction 2.1 Background and Motivation The quantum measurement problem remains one of the most fundamental open questions in modern physics. While quantum mechanics provides a highly successful framework for describing microscopic systems, the process by which a quantum superposition collapses into a definite outcome remains an unresolved issue. Existing interpretations of quantum mechanics offer different perspectives on wave function collapse. The Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber (GRW) model [1] postulates that collapse occurs spontaneously at a fixed rate, independent of environmental interactions. Decoherence theory [2] explains the transition from quantum to classical behavior as a result of systemenvironment entanglement but does not fundamentally resolve the measurement problem. Meanwhile, the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) [3] denies collapse altogether, asserting that all possible measurement outcomes persist in separate branches of the universe. 3 Despite their theoretical appeal, none of these models have achieved universal experimental support. The lack of a definitive collapse mechanism has prompted the search for alternative frameworks that reconcile quantum mechanics with empirical observations. 2.2 Existing Collapse Theories and Their Limitations A key issue with traditional collapse theories is their inability to explain why collapse appears to be an irreversible process. Theories such as GRW introduce ad hoc stochastic collapse rates, while decoherence models assume a smooth loss of coherence rather than a well-defined collapse threshold. Furthermore, MWI faces challenges in explaining the apparent uniqueness of observed outcomes. Another critical limitation of existing models is their failure to incorporate recent experimental findings, such as quantum eraser experiments [4]. These experiments suggest that wave function collapse may be reversible under certain conditions—an observation that contradicts purely stochastic or smooth decoherence-based models. 2.3 The Entropy-Triggered Reduction (ETR) Hypothesis In this paper, we introduce a new theoretical approach: the Entropy-Triggered Reduction (ETR) Hypothesis. This hypothesis proposes that: •Wave function collapse occurs when the environmental entropy S(t)surpasses a dynamically modulated critical threshold Scrit(t). •The threshold Scrit(t)is not fixed but depends on quantum error correction (QEC) mechanisms, which can delay or suppress collapse. •Memory effects influence collapse onset, meaning that past entropy fluctuations contribute to determining when collapse occurs. •The collapse process is nonlinear, meaning that small entropy variations may not immediately trigger collapse, but once a threshold is crossed, collapse occurs sharply. This approach distinguishes ETR from previous models in three key ways: 1. Non-Markovian Dynamics: Collapse depends not only on the present state but also on the history of entropy accumulation. 2. QEC-Driven Entropy Modulation: Quantum error correction dynamically raises Scrit(t), allowing quantum states to persist longer than in traditional models. 3. Energy-Dependent Collapse: High-energy states exhibit longer coherence times, meaning that collapse probability is not uniform across all quantum systems. 4 2.4 Structure of This Paper The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: •Section 2 develops the mathematical framework for ETR, introducing an extended Lindblad equation incorporating memory effects, QEC modulation, and energy-dependent collapse rates. •Section 3 discusses the empirical consistency of ETR, particularly in relation to quantum eraser experiments and future experimental tests. •Section 4 explores the theoretical implications and remaining open questions, including experimental validation strategies. •Section 5 concludes with a summary of key findings and potential research directions. By integrating entropy dynamics, quantum error correction, and non-Markovian effects, we propose that ETR offers a theoretically rigorous and experimentally testable alternative to existing collapse models. 3 Theoretical Framework 3.1 Fundamental Assumptions of ETR The Entropy-Triggered Reduction (ETR) Hypothesis posits that wave function collapse occurs when the environmental entropy S(t)exceeds a dynamically modulated threshold Scrit(t). Unlike spontaneous collapse models, where collapse occurs at a fixed rate, or decoherence models, where coherence loss is gradual, ETR introduces a threshold-based, memorydependent mechanism for collapse. The core assumptions of ETR are: 1. Entropy-Dependent Collapse: Collapse is triggered when S(t)≥Scrit(t), where Scrit(t)is a dynamically evolving function. 2. Non-Markovian Memory Effects: Collapse onset depends not only on the present entropy but also on past entropy fluctuations, leading to delayed or history-dependent transitions. 3. Quantum Error Correction (QEC) Influence: QEC mechanisms raise Scrit(t), delaying collapse and preserving coherence. 4. Energy-Dependent Scaling: High-energy quantum states exhibit increased resilience to collapse, meaning that collapse rates vary with system energy. 5 3.2 Extended Nonlinear Lindblad Equation with Memory Effects Traditional collapse models assume a Markovian process, where collapse occurs instantaneously once triggered. In contrast, ETR incorporates memory effects by introducing a time-integrated collapse rate: dρ dt =−i[H, ρ]−Γ(t)D[ρ], where the collapse rate Γ(t)is given by: Γ(t) = γ0 1 τZt 0 e−(t−t′)/τ S(t′)−Scrit Scrit !n dt′! 1 + tanh S(t)−Scrit δ!. Here: •γ0is the base collapse rate. •τis the memory timescale, governing how long past entropy fluctuations influence collapse. •ncontrols the nonlinearity of collapse onset. •δdetermines the smoothness of the transition from coherence to collapse. 3.3 Quantum Error Correction (QEC) and Threshold Modulation QEC mechanisms have been shown to enhance quantum coherence by suppressing errors. In ETR, we incorporate QEC as a modulating factor for Scrit(t), effectively raising the collapse threshold: Scrit(t) = Scrit,0+ζ Ecorr(d) 1 + tanh Ecorr(d)−Eth σ!, where: •Scrit,0is the baseline entropy threshold. •Ecorr(d)quantifies QEC efficiency at code distance d. •Eth is a critical QEC threshold above which its impact increases sharply. •σcontrols the sharpness of the transition. •ζis a scaling factor that determines the magnitude of QEC’s influence. 6 3.4 Energy Dependence of Collapse Rates We further refine the ETR model by introducing an energy-dependent collapse rate, acknowledging that quantum systems at higher energy scales exhibit longer coherence times: Γ(t, E) = Γ(t)h1 + η fE−EE criti, where: •ηis a constant controlling energy sensitivity. •f(E−EE crit)is a function (e.g., logistic) quantifying how collapse probability changes with energy. 3.5 Summary of Theoretical Framework The ETR hypothesis provides a quantitative, experimentally testable alternative to traditional collapse models: •Nonlinear Entropy-Triggered Collapse: Collapse occurs at a critical entropy threshold, which is dynamically modulated by QEC. •Memory-Dependent Collapse Dynamics: The collapse process exhibits hysteresis effects, meaning past entropy fluctuations influence the timing of collapse. •QEC as a Collapse Modulator: The ability of QEC to delay collapse introduces an experimentally controllable variable into wave function reduction. •Energy-Dependent Collapse Rates: High-energy quantum systems maintain coherence longer than low-energy systems, providing a testable distinction from decoherencebased models. 4 Empirical Consistency and Experimental Considerations The Entropy-Triggered Reduction (ETR) Hypothesis introduces testable predictions that distinguish it from alternative wave function collapse models. This section explores the empirical consistency of ETR with existing quantum experiments, outlines potential experimental tests, and discusses key considerations for future empirical validation. 4.1 Empirical Consistency with Existing Experiments Although ETR presents a novel approach to wave function collapse, its core principles align with observed quantum phenomena, particularly in quantum eraser experiments and highfidelity quantum error correction. 7 4.1.1 Quantum Eraser Experiments and Information Reversibility Quantum eraser experiments [1, 2] demonstrate that which-path information determines interference visibility. When path information is irreversibly recorded in the environment, coherence is lost. However, if this information is later erased before it fully decoheres the system, interference can be restored. •ETR Interpretation: –The recoverability of interference suggests that the collapse mechanism is not solely instantaneous but depends on whether entropy accumulation surpasses Scrit. –If which-path information is erased before reaching Scrit, the collapse does not become irreversible. –This aligns with ETR’s memory-dependent collapse model, where past entropy fluctuations influence the timing of collapse. 4.1.2 Role of Quantum Error Correction (QEC) in Delaying Decoherence Quantum error correction (QEC) has demonstrated the ability to extend coherence lifetimes in quantum systems [3, 4]. High-efficiency QEC can mitigate environmental noise, suggesting that the quantum state persists longer than expected under standard decoherence models. •ETR Prediction: –QEC increases Scrit(t), raising the entropy threshold for collapse. –As QEC efficiency increases, collapse should be systematically delayed beyond the predictions of standard decoherence theory. 4.1.3 Delayed Collapse and Memory Effects in Open Quantum Systems Experiments with superconducting qubits and ion traps have shown delayed coherence loss under specific environmental conditions [5]. These effects suggest that quantum systems can retain coherence longer than expected in Markovian models. •ETR Explanation: –The memory term in ETR accounts for time-delayed collapse, allowing temporary entropy fluctuations to avoid immediate collapse if long-term integration remains below Scrit. –This predicts that certain quantum states can persist longer than expected, offering a key testable distinction from standard decoherence. 4.2 Proposed Experimental Tests for ETR While ETR is theoretically consistent with existing quantum phenomena, rigorous experimental validation requires controlled tests that directly compare ETR with alternative models. We outline three key experimental tests below. 8 4.2.1 Experiment 1: QEC-Modulated Collapse Threshold Prediction: •Increasing QEC efficiency should systematically raise Scrit(t), delaying wave function collapse. Experimental Platform: •Superconducting qubits or trapped ions, where QEC efficiency can be precisely controlled. Methodology: •Apply QEC with varying code distances d, tracking coherence times. •Compare collapse onset across different QEC strengths. Expected Outcome: •If ETR is correct, collapse occurs at a higher entropy threshold with increasing QEC. •Standard decoherence models do not predict such a dependency. 4.2.2 Experiment 2: Memory-Dependent Collapse in Long-Lived States Prediction: •Collapse should depend not only on instantaneous entropy but also on its integrated history. Experimental Platform: •Trapped ions or Rydberg atoms, where coherence lifetimes can be extended under controlled conditions. Methodology: •Introduce a controlled sequence of entropy fluctuations to a long-lived quantum system. •Measure whether temporary entropy spikes always trigger collapse or whether recovery is possible. Expected Outcome: •If ETR is valid, collapse should be delayed under certain history-dependent conditions. •Standard collapse models predict immediate coherence loss upon crossing a fixed threshold. 9 6.3 Effect Size Quantification for QEC-Driven Collapse Suppression To quantify the impact of QEC on delaying collapse, we compute effect sizes ∆QEC, measuring how strongly QEC shifts the entropy threshold: ∆QEC =Scrit,QEC −Scrit,no QEC σ, where: •Scrit,QEC is the entropy threshold with QEC. •Scrit,no QEC is the threshold without QEC. •σis the pooled standard deviation. Interpreting Effect Sizes: ∆QEC Value Interpretation <0.2Negligible effect 0.2−0.5Small effect 0.5−0.8Moderate effect >0.8Large effect Table 5: Effect Size Interpretation for QEC Impact Key Experimental Validation: •If ∆QEC >0.8, QEC significantly delays collapse, contradicting GRW and MWI. •If ∆QEC ≈0, QEC has no effect, contradicting the ETR Hypothesis. 6.4 Entropy Growth Curve Fitting and Model Selection To test entropy-driven collapse dynamics, we fit experimental data to competing models: 1. ETR Hypothesis (Threshold Model): Pcollapse(S) = Θ(S−Scrit), where Θis the Heaviside step function. 2. GRW Model (Random Model): Pcollapse(S) = λ e−λ S. 16 3. Decoherence Model (Smooth Model): Pcollapse(S) = 1 −e−S/τ . Using Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), we identify which model best fits experimental collapse distributions. Key Experimental Validation: •If the ETR Hypothesis has the lowest AIC/BIC, entropy-threshold collapse is validated. •If GRW fits best, collapse is purely stochastic. 7 Conclusion and Future Directions The Entropy-Triggered Reduction (ETR) Hypothesis provides a novel framework for understanding wave function collapse as an entropy-driven process. Unlike GRW, decoherence models, or the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI), the ETR Hypothesis incorporates: 1. Entropy-dependent collapse thresholds. 2. Quantum error correction as a collapse modulator. 3. Memory effects and nonlinear entropy dynamics. 4. A rigorous experimental and statistical validation framework. 7.1 Summary of Key Insights •Refinement of the ETR Hypothesis: Wave function collapse occurs when environmental entropy S(t)crosses Scrit(t). QEC raises Scrit(t), delaying collapse and enhancing coherence. Nonlinear Lindblad equations with memory effects account for delayed entropy accumulation, preventing instantaneous transitions. •Experimental Validation Strategy: Superconducting qubits for testing QEC’s role in modifying collapse thresholds. Trapped ions for observing entropy-driven entanglement loss. Optical interferometry for measuring entropy-modulated coherence suppression. Machine learning for predicting entropy growth and collapse onset in real time. •Statistical Validation Framework: Bayesian inference (estimating thresholds, rates), Bootstrapping (confidence intervals), Effect size analysis (quantifying QEC’s impact), Model selection (AIC/BIC) comparing ETR with GRW, decoherence, and MWI. 17 7.2 Open Questions and Further Research 1. Real-Time Control of Scrit and Adaptive QEC: Can active QEC feedback loops maintain a quantum system below the collapse threshold? What are the practical limits of using QEC to indefinitely suppress collapse? 2. Extensions to Cosmology and Quantum Gravity: Can entropy-triggered collapse explain the black hole information paradox? Does the early universe exhibit entropydriven collapse effects? 3. Large-Scale Quantum Computing Applications: Can QEC-driven collapse suppression enable indefinitely coherent quantum processors? How do large-scale entangled systems behave under entropy-driven collapse models? 4. Fundamental Constraints from Quantum Foundations: Is ETR compatible with violations of Leggett-Garg inequalities? How does entropy-driven collapse interact with quantum nonlocality and Bell tests? 7.3 Towards Large-Scale Quantum Computing Applications If entropy-driven collapse suppression via QEC is confirmed, it could revolutionize faulttolerant quantum computing: •Extended Coherence Times: Actively modulating Scrit(t)could maintain long-lived superpositions, reducing decoherence-induced errors. •Novel Quantum Error Correction Architectures: Entropy-driven models suggest QEC strategies that optimize overhead while retaining system coherence. •Quantum Cryptography and Secure Communications: If collapse is entropydependent, new cryptographic protocols might exploit entropy-modulated quantum state dynamics. 7.4 Implications for Future Experimental Work Separation of Theoretical and Experimental Papers: This work is a theoretical foundation; a separate experimental paper will be needed for empirical tests. Theoretical validation precedes experimental implementation to ensure a coherent framework. Experimental Roadmap and Potential Delays: Refinements may delay the companion experimental paper. Implementation details will be guided by the evolving ETR model. Authorship Considerations: The lead author for the experimental paper is under discussion. Collaboration structure and authorship order will be finalized after theoretical validation. 18 7.5 Concluding Remarks The Entropy-Triggered Reduction (ETR) Hypothesis offers a quantitatively testable alternative to standard collapse models, integrating: •Entropy-dependent collapse thresholds, •Quantum error correction as a collapse modulator, •Memory effects and nonlinear entropy dynamics, •A rigorous experimental and statistical validation framework. As quantum technologies advance, understanding the fundamental mechanisms of wave function collapse remains a key challenge. This work provides a mathematically rigorous and experimentally verifiable path toward resolving this longstanding problem in quantum mechanics. References [1] Ghirardi, G. C., Rimini, A., & Weber, T. (1986). Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems. Physical Review D, 34 (2), 470–491. https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.34.470 [2] Zurek, W. H. (2003). Decoherence, einselection, and the quantum origins of the classical. Reviews of Modern Physics, 75 (3), 715–775. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys. 75.715 [3] Everett, H. (1957). “Relative State” Formulation of Quantum Mechanics. Reviews of Modern Physics, 29 (3), 454–462. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.29.454 [4] Kim, Y.-H., Yu, C.-S., Kulik, S. P., Shih, Y., & Scully, M. O. (2000). Delayed “choice” quantum eraser. Physical Review Letters, 84(1), 1–5. https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.84.1 [5] Bassi, A., Lochan, K., Satin, S., Singh, T. P., & Ulbricht, H. (2013). Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests. Reviews of Modern Physics, 85(2), 471–527. https://doi.org/10.1103/RevModPhys.85.471 [6] Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379–423. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.x [7] Clausius, R. (1865). On the motive power of heat, and on the laws which can be deduced from it for the theory of heat. Philosophical Magazine, 30 (182), 368–397. https://doi. org/10.1080/14786446508643424 [8] Boltzmann, L. (1877). Über die Beziehung zwischendem zweiten Hauptsatze der mechanischen Wärmetheorie und der Wahrscheinlichkeitsrechnung, respective den Sätzen über das Wärmegleichgewicht. Wiener Berichte, 76, 373–435. 19 [9] Tsallis, C. (1988). Possible generalization of Boltzmann-Gibbs statistics. Journal of Statistical Physics, 52 (1–2), 479–487. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01016429 [10] Friston, K. (2010). The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11 (2), 127–138. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787 [11] Carhart-Harris, R. L., et al. (2014). The entropic brain: A theory of conscious states informed by neuroimaging research with psychedelic drugs. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 20. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00020 [12] Jones, C., Guaita, T., & Bassi, A. (2019). On the (im)possibility of extending the GRW model to relativistic particles. Physical Review A, 103(4), 042216. https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevA.103.042216 [13] Vaidman, L. (2024). The Many-Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: Current Status and Relation to Other Interpretations. Quantum Reports, 6 (2), 142–146. https: //doi.org/10.3390/quantum6020011 [14] Ghosh, A. (2024). Revolutionizing Quantum Mechanics: The Birth and Evolution of the Many-Worlds Interpretation. arXiv preprint arXiv:2405.06924.https://arxiv.org/ abs/2405.06924 [15] Vaidman, L. (2022). Why the Many-Worlds Interpretation? arXiv preprint arXiv:2208.04618.https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.04618 [16] Torres, F., Modak, S. K., & Aranda, A. (2022). New insights on the quantum-classical division in light of Collapse Models. arXiv preprint arXiv:2210.10603.https://arxiv. org/abs/2210.10603 [17] Harlow, D. (2024). Black holes, entropy, and the quantum mechanics of information. Annual Review of Condensed Matter Physics, 15(1), 93–120. https://doi.org/10. 1146/annurev-conmatphys-031623-105015 [18] DiVincenzo, D. P. (2024). Advances in fault-tolerant quantum computing and error correction. Nature Physics, 20 (2), 134–143. https://doi.org/10.1038/ s41567-023-02048-5 [19] Vinante, A., et al. (2017). Testing collapse models with high-mass mechanical resonators. Physical Review Letters, 119(11), 110401. https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett. 119.110401 [20] Takayanagi, T. (2022). Holographic Entanglement Entropy. Kyoto University Press. 20