!
You're viewing papers too quickly. Please wait a moment.<br>This helps keep the archive available for everyone.
Quick Navigation
Topics
Open Quantum Systems Decoherence
Relative descriptors for quantum agents
arXiv
Authors: David Möckli, Lorenzo Spies Perraro
Year
2024
Paper ID
66706
Status
Preprint
Abstract Read
~2 min
Abstract Words
86
Citations
N/A
Abstract
We use the Heisenberg picture of Everettian quantum mechanics to work out the relative descriptors for the Frauchiger-Renner thought experiment. While Everettian mechanics reveals no paradox within the thought experiment, the decoherence-free setup offers an instructive branching tree. Traditionally, branching structures derived from the Schrödinger picture suggest that foliations are always sharply defined. However, the Heisenberg picture demonstrates that the tree contains regions with inherently non-sharp foliations, leading to the conclusion that, in Everettian mechanics, quantum agents possess a history with a non-sharp memory registry.
Why This Paper Matters
- This paper contributes to the Open Quantum Systems & Decoherence research area in the Quantum Articles archive.
- It adds a 2024 reference point for readers tracking recent quantum research.
- We use the Heisenberg picture of Everettian quantum mechanics to work out the relative descriptors for the Frauchiger-Renner thought experiment.
Paper Tools
Become a member to use research tools
Sign in to open papers, visit source links, share, cite, compare, copy DOI links, request category corrections, and build your reading list.
Show Paper arXiv Publisher Share
Cite This Paper
Copy URL
Compare
Copy DOI Add to Reading List
Category Correction Request
Category Correction Request
Help us improve classification quality by proposing a better category. Every request is reviewed by an admin.
Sign in to submit a category correction request for this paper.
Log In to SubmitReferences & Citation Signals
Community Reactions
Quick sentiment from readers on this paper.
Score:
0
Likes: 0
Dislikes: 0
Sign in to react to this paper.
Discussion & Reviews (Moderated)
Average Rating: 0.0 / 5 (0 ratings)
No written reviews yet.