<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Underground test of gravity-related wave function collapse · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2111.13490/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2111.13490/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Underground test of gravity-related wave function collapse — mentioned by KingFelix</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45621638</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:2111.13490:45621638</guid><pubDate>Fri, 17 Oct 2025 20:26:58 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;Yup, even the Dioso-Penrose limit has two sides. https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.13490 Paraphrasing here: The paper above was looking for energy given off during collapse, (which they did not find) on the Diosi side, where Penrose&amp;#x27; idea is more in the retro-causal, you wouldn&amp;#x27;t find an energy signature. I am sure someone can call out a better representation, but similar to your response that Roger has these ideas and looks for collaborators, but still has his own ideas on things that may differ. Interesting seeing this conversation going on, Roger / Stuarts work has been trashed over the years…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/2111.13490/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>quant-ph</category></item></channel></rss>
