Abstract
Recently, Frauchiger and Renner proposed a Gedankenexperiment, which was claimed to be able to prove that quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself. Here we show that the conclusions of Frauchiger and Renner actually came from their incorrect description of some quantum states. With the correct description there will be no inconsistent results, no matter which quantum interpretation theory is used. Especially, the Copenhagen interpretation can satisfy all the three assumptions (C), (Q), and (S) of Frauchiger and Renner simultaneously, thus it has no problem consistently describing the use of itself.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Frauchiger, D., Renner, R.: Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself. Nat. Commun. 9, 3711 (2018)
Castelvecchi, D.: Reimagining of Schrödinger’s cat breaks quantum mechanics—and stumps physicists. Nature 561, 446 (2018)
Pusey, M.F.: An inconsistent friend. Nat. Phys. 14, 977 (2018)
Brukner, C.: A no-go theorem for observer-independent facts. Entropy 20, 350 (2018)
Chen, L., Zhang, Y. -Q.: Comments on Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself. arXiv:1810.01080 (2018)
Relaño, A.: Decoherence allows quantum theory to describe the use of itself. arXiv:1810.07065 (2018)
Drezet, A.: About Wigner Friend’s and Hardy’s paradox in a Bohmian approach: a comment of “Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself”. Int. J. Quantum Found. 5, 80 (2019). arXiv:1810.10917 (2018)
Yang, J.M.: Consistent descriptions of quantum measurement. arXiv:1812.00985 (2018)
Sudbery, A.: The hidden assumptions of Frauchiger and Renner. arXiv:1905.13248 (2019)
Lerner, P.B.: Comment on Frauchiger and Renner paper (Nat. Commun. 9, 3711 (2018)): The problem of stopping times. arXiv:1906.02333 (2019)
Howard, D.: Who invented the “Copenhagen interpretation”? A study in mythology. Philos. Sci. 71, 669 (2004)
Rosenfeld, L.: The measuring process in quantum mechanics. In: Cohen, R., Stachel, J. (eds.) Selected Papers of Léon Rosenfeld, p. 536. Reidel, Dordrecht (1979)
Stapp, H.P.: The Copenhagen interpretation. Am. J. Phys. 40, 1098 (1972)
Penrose, R.: On Gravity’s role in quantum state reduction. Gen. Relat. Gravit. 28, 581 (1996)
Henderson, J.R.: Classes of Copenhagen interpretations: mechanisms of collapse as typologically determinative. Stud. Hist. Philos. Sci. B 41, 1 (2010)
Carroll, S.: Why probability in quantum mechanics is given by the wave function squared. Available online at: http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/07/24/why-probability-in-quantum-mechanics-is-given-by-the-wave-function-squared/ (2014)
He, G.P.: Quantum theory has no problem consistently describing the use of itself. arXiv:1810.06858v1 (2018)
Deutsch, D.: Quantum theory as an universal physical theory. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 24, 1 (1985)
Rovelli, C.: Relational quantum mechanics. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 35, 1 (1996)
Acknowledgements
We thank the anonymous reviewer for sharing the ideas that leads to Sect. 4. The work was supported in part by Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation under Grant No. 2019A1515011048.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
He, G.P. Copenhagen Interpretation Can Survive the Upgraded Schrödinger’s cat Gedankenexperiment. Found Phys 50, 715–726 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-020-00343-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-020-00343-7