Does the Frauchiger-Renner Theorem prove only MWI is correct

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Frauchiger-Renner theorem and its implications for interpretations of quantum mechanics, specifically whether it supports the Many Worlds Interpretation (MWI) as the only correct interpretation. Participants explore the theorem's claims, its critiques, and personal preferences for interpretations of quantum mechanics.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants reference the Frauchiger-Renner paper, which argues that single world interpretations of quantum mechanics are inconsistent.
  • Others provide links to papers that present arguments against the claims made by Frauchiger and Renner.
  • A participant expresses concern that the Frauchiger-Renner paper makes an unfounded assumption regarding new measurements deleting information about previous outcomes.
  • There is mention of Hardy's Paradox in relation to the theorem, though some participants indicate a lack of understanding of the mathematical details involved.
  • Participants share personal preferences for interpretations of quantum mechanics, with one explicitly stating a preference for Bohmian mechanics.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of the Frauchiger-Renner theorem or its implications for interpretations of quantum mechanics. Multiple competing views remain, with some supporting the theorem and others challenging its assumptions.

Contextual Notes

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the mathematical and conceptual aspects of the theorem, indicating potential limitations in their discussions. The reliance on specific interpretations and assumptions is also noted, but not resolved.

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
1K
  • · 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 339 ·
12
Replies
339
Views
18K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K