English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

We discuss the argument proposed in Ref.~\cite{Frauchiger-Renner}, and showthat it does not particularly illustrate any inconsistency in quantummechanics, but rather the well known difficulty often described as the\textquotedblleft shifty split\textquotedblright: the exact point at which thevon Neumann reduction postulate should be applied is ill defined. This is theorigin of the famous Schr\"{o}dinger's cat or Wigner's friend paradoxes.  We investigate the argument of Ref.~\cite{Frauchiger-Renner} and show that itcombines statements obtained by different agents assuming very differentpositions of the shifty split, and therefore applying the reduction postulatein different ways. This results in the introduction of several different statevectors, while such descriptions are considered as incompatible in standardquantum mechanics. To our knowledge, no interpretation of quantum mechanicsincludes this possibility; the argument thus refers to a new form of quantummechanics that should be specified more precisely.

Can quantum mechanics be considered consistent? a discussion of Frauchinger and Renner's argument