PIRSA:16060101

Journal club: Frauchiger-Renner no-go theorem for single-world interpretations of quantum theory

del Rio, L. (2016). Journal club: Frauchiger-Renner no-go theorem for single-world interpretations of quantum theory. Perimeter Institute. https://pirsa.org/16060101

del Rio, Lidia. Journal club: Frauchiger-Renner no-go theorem for single-world interpretations of quantum theory. Perimeter Institute, Jun. 15, 2016, https://pirsa.org/16060101 

          @misc{ pirsa_PIRSA:16060101,
            doi = {10.48660/16060101},
            url = {https://pirsa.org/16060101},
            author = {del Rio, Lidia},
            keywords = {Quantum Foundations},
            language = {en},
            title = {Journal club: Frauchiger-Renner no-go theorem for single-world interpretations of quantum theory},
            publisher = {Perimeter Institute},
            year = {2016},
            month = {jun},
            note = {PIRSA:16060101 see, \url{https://pirsa.org}}
          }

Lidia del Rio ETH Zurich

DOI 10.48660/16060101
Collection
Talk Type Scientific Series
Subject

Abstract

In this talk I will go over the recent paper by Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner, "Single-world interpretations of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent" (arXiv:1604.07422).

The paper introduces an extended Wigner's friend thought experiment, which makes use of Hardy's paradox to show that agents will necessarily reach contradictory conclusions - unless they take into account that they themselves may be in a superposition, and that their subjective experience of observing an outcome is not the whole story.

Frauchiger and Renner then put this experiment in context within a general framework to analyse physical theories. This leads to a theorem saying that a theory cannot be simultaneously (1) compliant with quantum theory, including at the macroscopic level, (2) single-world, and (3) self-consistent across different agents.

In this talk I will (1) describe the experiment and its immediate consequences, (2) quickly review how different interpretations react to it, (3) explain the framework and theorem in more detail.