Skip to the content
Aletheia

Collapse, Not Computation · source record · paper

Have underground radiation measurements refuted the Orch OR theory?

McQueen, Kelvin J. · 2023

AI-verified citationSRC-MCQUEEN-2023
identifier / locator
Physics of Life Reviews 44: 201–203. DOI: 10.1016/j.plrev.2023.01.021
url
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2023.01.021
verification note
Bibliographic record verified via Crossref (2026-08-22 run): title, author, journal, volume 44, pages 201–203, March 2023. Crossref holds no abstract; the full text was not read for this import, so the argument is characterized here from the deep-research report's summary and is labeled as such on the evidence record.
reliability notes
  • A philosopher of physics, not an Orch OR proponent, making a model-theoretic point about what the Gran Sasso bound licenses.
  • The point cuts both ways and this case treats it that way: escaping an experimental bound by retreating to an incompletely specified version of the theory is not positive evidence for that version.

Evidence drawn from this source

Qualifies· weakORCH-E019

McQueen: the radiation bound does not reach Penrose's own criterion

what the source states
A short comment in Physics of Life Reviews titled "Have underground radiation measurements refuted the Orch OR theory?", replying to Derakhshani et al. 2022. Crossref holds no abstract and this import did not read the full text; per the deep-research report, the argument is that Penrose's OR criterion is a characteristic-lifetime relation (τ ≈ ℏ/E_G) rather than a stochastic dynamical model, and therefore does not entail the spontaneous radiation the Gran Sasso experiment searched for. That characterization is relayed rather than verified.
what we infer
The argument is sound as far as it goes and this case accepts it, which is why ORCH-C030 is assessed as unresolved rather than refuted. It is graded weak for two reasons. Its content is relayed from a secondary summary rather than read. And a distinction that saves a theory from an experiment by locating it outside the experiment's reach is not evidence for the theory — it converts a refuted specific model into an untested vague one, which is a worse epistemic position than it sounds.
limitations
  • Full text not read by this import; argument relayed from the deep-research report's summary.
  • A short comment, not new data or new theory.
  • Its force is entirely negative: it blocks an inference without supporting the theory.
McQueen, Kelvin J. (2023)AI-verified citationORCH-C030ORCH-C031