Does the Frauchiger-Renner Theorem prove only MWI is correct

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The Frauchiger-Renner Theorem, as presented in the paper arXiv:1604.07422, argues that single-world interpretations of quantum mechanics are inconsistent. This claim is leveraged by proponents of the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) to assert its correctness. However, counterarguments are presented in two additional papers: arXiv:1608.05873 and arXiv:1804.03267. The discussion highlights a critical assumption in the theorem regarding measurement outcomes and information retention, which remains contentious among participants.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics principles
  • Familiarity with the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI)
  • Knowledge of Hardy's Paradox in quantum theory
  • Ability to analyze academic papers in theoretical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Read and analyze the Frauchiger-Renner paper arXiv:1604.07422
  • Examine counterarguments in arXiv:1608.05873 and arXiv:1804.03267
  • Study Hardy's Paradox and its implications in quantum mechanics
  • Explore various interpretations of quantum mechanics, focusing on Bohmian mechanics
USEFUL FOR

Quantum physicists, students of theoretical physics, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of quantum mechanics interpretations.

JordanPolla
Messages
4
Reaction score
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
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?
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
Demystifier said:
Bohmian.
Why did I read that as Bohemian? :biggrin::biggrin::biggrin:
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Demystifier

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
5K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
877
  • · Replies 201 ·
7
Replies
201
Views
26K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 51 ·
2
Replies
51
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 338 ·
12
Replies
338
Views
15K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K