Does the Frauchiger-Renner Theorem prove only MWI is correct

In summary, the paper argues that single world interpretations of quantum mechanics are not consistent.
  • #1
JordanPolla
4
0
Hello all, I have only seen this paper brought up here once before based on the search function 2 years ago, and the thread devolved into something off topic within the first page.

I am asking in reference to this paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1604.07422.pdf

Which claims to show that single world interpretations of quantum mechanics are not consistent.

I was wondering if any of you here have gone over this paper, or would like to give you thoughts on it, and it's usage by MWI proponents of this paper proving that Many Worlds is the only correct interpretation.

Thanks in advance for any and all comments.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #4
Demystifier said:
We already had a discussion of that paper:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threa...annot-be-self-consistent.872337/#post-5477259
See in particular my post #8.

So from what I can gather with my introductory understanding of QM, the paper makes an unfounded assumption about new measurements deleting information about the outcomes of previous measurements, and something about Hardy's Paradox that my understanding and math is not quite to par to understand?
 
  • #5
JordanPolla said:
So from what I can gather with my introductory understanding of QM, the paper makes an unfounded assumption about new measurements deleting information about the outcomes of previous measurements, and something about Hardy's Paradox that my understanding and math is not quite to par to understand?
Roughly, yes.
 
  • #6
Demystifier said:
Roughly, yes.
Nice, thanks for the quick replies. Off topic question and prob my final post, but what interpretation do you personally prefer, I know they are all experimentally the same, but do you have a personal preference or one your intuition tells you might be more correct?
 
  • #7
JordanPolla said:
Nice, thanks for the quick replies. Off topic question and prob my final post, but what interpretation do you personally prefer, I know they are all experimentally the same, but do you have a personal preference or one your intuition tells you might be more correct?
Bohmian.
 
  • #8
Demystifier said:
Bohmian.
Why did I read that as Bohemian? :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
 
  • Like
Likes Demystifier

What is the Frauchiger-Renner Theorem?

The Frauchiger-Renner Theorem is a thought experiment proposed by physicists Markus Frauchiger and Renato Renner in 2018. It aims to address the question of whether the Many-Worlds Interpretation (MWI) of quantum mechanics is the only valid interpretation of the theory.

What does the Frauchiger-Renner Theorem state?

The Frauchiger-Renner Theorem states that if the MWI is the only valid interpretation of quantum mechanics, then the outcomes of certain quantum experiments must be inconsistent. This implies that either the MWI is incorrect or that the standard rules of quantum mechanics must be revised.

Does the Frauchiger-Renner Theorem prove that only MWI is correct?

No, the Frauchiger-Renner Theorem does not prove that only MWI is correct. It simply presents a logical inconsistency that must be addressed by any theory that claims to be the only valid interpretation of quantum mechanics.

What are the implications of the Frauchiger-Renner Theorem?

The Frauchiger-Renner Theorem has significant implications for our understanding of quantum mechanics and the nature of reality. It challenges the idea that there is a single, objective reality and suggests that the concept of parallel universes may be necessary to explain certain quantum phenomena.

Has the Frauchiger-Renner Theorem been proven?

No, the Frauchiger-Renner Theorem is a thought experiment and has not been proven experimentally. It is a theoretical proposal that raises important questions about the nature of reality and the validity of different interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Similar threads

  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
42
Views
3K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
1
Views
369
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
6
Replies
201
Views
21K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
2
Replies
51
Views
5K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
7
Views
718
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
11
Replies
376
Views
10K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • Quantum Interpretations and Foundations
Replies
33
Views
3K
Back
Top