# Single-world interpretations of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent

Originality
+ 0 - 0
Accuracy
+ 0 - 1
Score
-1.00
484 views
Referee this paper: arXiv:1604.07422 by Daniela Frauchiger, Renato Renner

Please use comments to point to previous work in this direction, and reviews to referee the accuracy of the paper. Feel free to edit this submission to summarise the paper (just click on edit, your summary will then appear under the horizontal line)

requested May 19, 2016

paper authored Apr 25, 2016 to quant-ph

Abstract: According to quantum theory, a measurement may have multiple possible outcomes. Single-world interpretations assert that, nevertheless, only one of them "really" occurs. Here we propose a gedankenexperiment where quantum theory is applied to model an experimenter who herself uses quantum theory. We find that, in such a scenario, no single-world interpretation can be logically consistent. This conclusion extends to deterministic hidden-variable theories, such as Bohmian mechanics, for they impose a single-world interpretation.

The authors provide a simple summary:

Main result (informal version) - There cannot exist a physical theory T that has all of the following properties:

• (QT) Compliance with quantum theory: T forbids all measurement results that are forbidden by standard quantum theory (and this condition holds even if the measured system is large enough to contain itself an experimenter).
• (SW) Single-world: T rules out the occurrence of more than one single outcome if an experimenter measures a system once.
• (SC) Self-consistency: T's statements about measurement outcomes are logically consistent (even if they are obtained by considering the perspectives of different experimenters).

as today, this document is very cited and has many answers. All the troubles come from the removing of the uncertainty in interactions. Curiously, it is difficult to refute this analysis without refuting the Bell theorem which suffers from the same errors plus an imaginary Malus law plus a built in classical reference curve, no one knowing from where it came ( or else please tell exactly me how the reference was found ).

 Please use reviews only to (at least partly) review submissions. To comment, discuss, or ask for clarification, leave a comment instead. To mask links under text, please type your text, highlight it, and click the "link" button. You can then enter your link URL. Please consult the FAQ for as to how to format your post. This is the review box; if you want to write a comment instead, please use the 'add comment' button. Live preview (may slow down editor)   Preview Your name to display (optional): Email me at this address if my review is selected or commented on: Privacy: Your email address will only be used for sending these notifications. Anti-spam verification: If you are a human please identify the position of the character covered by the symbol $\varnothing$ in the following word:p$\hbar$ysicsOverfl$\varnothing$wThen drag the red bullet below over the corresponding character of our banner. When you drop it there, the bullet changes to green (on slow internet connections after a few seconds). To avoid this verification in future, please log in or register.