Gravity was never a leading explanation for collapse; it was always a fringe idea.<p>Gravity is local and apparent collapse is non-local; it doesn’t even pass the smell test.
What percentage of practicing physicists actually think there is something "missing" in the quantum formalism as it relates to "wavefunction collapse"?<p>I'm not a physicist, but from the few years of QM I took in college my take is that there is nothing special about "measurement", it's just a label we apply to certain states becoming entnagled. As long as you don't believe there is anything magical about humans or other "conscious" observers, then there doesn't seem to be anything to figure out about collapse.
The [paper](<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-1008-4" rel="nofollow">https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-020-1008-4</a>)
Every measurement (gravitational, electronic, magnetic etc. ) causes a collapse of the probabilities. This has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. This is simply statistics/math and has nothing to do with physics.<p>A simple example:
As long as one doesn't look at a coin, the probability that it shows head or tail is 50%. After the measurement it "collapses" to 100% for one of the options.<p>But the "collapse" is only a mathematical "collapse", not a physical one.<p>Physics only limits how precise and fast your measurement apparatus can be.
"Now, one of the most plausible mechanisms for quantum collapse—gravity—has suffered a setback." no it hasn't: stop trying to inject drama where there is none.