Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

arXiv:1608.05873 · Foundations of Physics

Single-World Theory of the Extended Wigner’s Friend Experiment

Anthony Sudbery

Published Apr 7, 2017• 73 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

Frauchiger and Renner have recently claimed to prove that “Single-world interpretations of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent”. This is contradicted by a construction due to Bell, inspired by Bohmian mechanics, which shows that any quantum system can be modelled in such a way that there is only one “world” at any time, but the predictions of quantum theory are reproduced. This Bell–Bohmian theory is applied to the experiment proposed by Frauchiger and Renner, and their argument is critically examined. It is concluded that it is their version of “standard quantum theory”, incorporating state vector collapse upon measurement, that is not self-consistent.

DOI
10.1007/s10701-017-0082-7

Related papers

How Single-World Quantum Mechanics is Consistent

Dustin Lazarovici, Mario Hubert

We discuss the no-go theorem of Frauchiger and Renner based on an extended Wigner's friend thought experiment which is supposed to show that any single-world interpretation of quantum mechanics leads to inconsistent predictions if it is applicable on all scales. We show that no such inconsistency occurs if one considers a complete description of the physical situation. We then discuss implications of the thought experiment that have not been clearly addressed in the original paper, including a tension between relativity and nonlocal effects predicted by quantum mechanics. Our discussion applies in particular to Bohmian mechanics.

•Sep 21, 2018•0 citations

The extended Wigner's friend, many- and single-worlds and reasoning from observation

Andrew Steane

The concept of an isolated system, and Frauchiger and Renner's extended `Wigner's friend' scenario are discussed. It is argued that: (i) it is questionable whether the approximation of the isolated system is valid when measurement-like processes are involved; (ii) one may infer, from Frauchiger and Renner's thought-experiment, and similar thought-experiments, that any interpretation of quantum theory involving *subjective collapse* fails; (iii) this does not distinguish single-world from many-world (relative-state) interpretations of quantum theory; (iv) reasoning from observations has to take into account the possible quantum-erasure of those observations if it is to be valid reasoning; (v) a single-world interpretation is valid if certain kinds of outcome are not quantum-erased in the future.

quant-pharXiv:2605.08375•Foundations of Physics•May 12, 2026•2 citations

How Quantum Mechanics can consistently describe the use of itself

Dustin Lazarovici, Mario Hubert

We discuss the no-go theorem of Frauchiger and Renner based on an "extended Wigner's friend" thought experiment which is supposed to show that any single-world interpretation of quantum mechanics leads to inconsistent predictions if it is applicable on all scales. We show that no such inconsistency occurs if one considers a complete description of the physical situation. We then discuss implications of the thought experiment that have not been clearly addressed in the original paper, including a tension between relativity and nonlocal effects predicted by quantum mechanics. Our discussion applies in particular to Bohmian mechanics.

Scientific Reports•Jan 24, 2019•113 citations

About Wigner Friend's and Hardy's paradox in a Bohmian approach: a comment of `Quantum theory cannot' consistently describe the use of itself'

Aurélien Drezet

This is an analysis of the recently published article `Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself' by D. Frauchiger and R. Renner~\cite{1}. Here I decipher the paradox and analyze it from the point of view of de Broglie-Bohm hidden variable theory (i.e., Bohmian mechanics). I also analyze the problem from the perspective obtained by the Copenhagen interpretation (i.e., the Bohrian interpretation) and show that both views are self consistent and do not lead to any contradiction with a `single-world' description of quantum theory.

arXiv:1810.10917•Oct 25, 2018•12 citations

Wigner and his many friends: A new no-go result?

Sebastián Fortín, Olímpia Lombardi

In April 2016, Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner published an article online in which they introduce a Gedankenexperiment that led them to conclude that single-world interpretation of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent. In a new version of the paper, published in September 2018, the authors moderate their original claim by concluding that quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems, at least not in a straightforward manner. The purpose of this article is to offer a careful reconstruction of the F-R argument, which allows us to show that: (i) the argument can be more clearly formulated with no reference to what subjects know or see, but rather only in terms of quantum propositions, (ii) in contrast to what some commentators suppose, the argument does not require the hypothesis of collapse to arrive to its conclusion, and (iii) the contradiction resulting from the F-R argument is inferred by making classical conjunctions between different and incompatible contexts. On the basis of this clarification, we will finally argue that the conclusion of the F-R argument is not as novel and original as its great impact might make us to suppose.

arXiv:1904.07412•Apr 16, 2019•7 citations

To the rescue of Copenhagen interpretation

Igor Salom

A recent paper "Single-world interpretations of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent" [arXiv:1604.07422] by D. Frauchiger and R. Renner has attracted a considerable interest of a broader physics audience and shortly elicited a number of replies. In spite of the objections that ensued, we find that significant part of the controversial initial claim has not been refuted - on the contrary, arguments presented both in the initial paper and in the replies seem to leave no longer room for the basic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. We revisit the controversy trying to pinpoint the exact phenomenon that lies in its core, pointing out to some aspects of the problem that seem to have been mostly overlooked. Taking all conclusions into account, we here propose novel ways to approach the ostensible paradox, in which the Copenhagen interpretation is naturally preserved. Whereas arguments presented in Frauchiger and Renner paper and the replies that followed revolve over whether Wigner's friend would perceive only one or both of the possible outcomes, we offer the third, pretty obvious solution - namely, that Wigner's friend, in the well known setup, would subjectively perceive {\it none} of the potentially conflicting outcomes. As a side note, we also argue that, contrary to the often stated beliefs, hypothetical real experimental realization of Wigner's friend thought experiment actually would not provide us with any new insight into the quantum mechanics.

arXiv:1809.01746•Sep 5, 2018•5 citations
Frauchiger and Renner have recently claimed to prove that “Single-world interpretations of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent”. This is contradicted by a construction due to Bell, inspired by Bohmian mechanics, which shows that any quantum system can be modelled in such a way that there is only one “world” at any time, but the predictions of quantum theory are reproduced. This Bell–Bohmian theory is applied to the experiment proposed by Frauchiger and Renner, and their argument is critically examined. It is concluded that it is their version of “standard quantum theory”, incorporating state vector collapse upon measurement, that is not self-consistent.
We discuss the no-go theorem of Frauchiger and Renner based on an extended Wigner's friend thought experiment which is supposed to show that any single-world interpretation of quantum mechanics leads to inconsistent predictions if it is applicable on all scales. We show that no such inconsistency occurs if one considers a complete description of the physical situation. We then discuss implications of the thought experiment that have not been clearly addressed in the original paper, including a tension between relativity and nonlocal effects predicted by quantum mechanics. Our discussion applies in particular to Bohmian mechanics.
The concept of an isolated system, and Frauchiger and Renner's extended `Wigner's friend' scenario are discussed. It is argued that: (i) it is questionable whether the approximation of the isolated system is valid when measurement-like processes are involved; (ii) one may infer, from Frauchiger and Renner's thought-experiment, and similar thought-experiments, that any interpretation of quantum theory involving *subjective collapse* fails; (iii) this does not distinguish single-world from many-world (relative-state) interpretations of quantum theory; (iv) reasoning from observations has to take into account the possible quantum-erasure of those observations if it is to be valid reasoning; (v) a single-world interpretation is valid if certain kinds of outcome are not quantum-erased in the future.
We discuss the no-go theorem of Frauchiger and Renner based on an "extended Wigner's friend" thought experiment which is supposed to show that any single-world interpretation of quantum mechanics leads to inconsistent predictions if it is applicable on all scales. We show that no such inconsistency occurs if one considers a complete description of the physical situation. We then discuss implications of the thought experiment that have not been clearly addressed in the original paper, including a tension between relativity and nonlocal effects predicted by quantum mechanics. Our discussion applies in particular to Bohmian mechanics.
This is an analysis of the recently published article `Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself' by D. Frauchiger and R. Renner~\cite{1}. Here I decipher the paradox and analyze it from the point of view of de Broglie-Bohm hidden variable theory (i.e., Bohmian mechanics). I also analyze the problem from the perspective obtained by the Copenhagen interpretation (i.e., the Bohrian interpretation) and show that both views are self consistent and do not lead to any contradiction with a `single-world' description of quantum theory.
In April 2016, Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner published an article online in which they introduce a Gedankenexperiment that led them to conclude that single-world interpretation of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent. In a new version of the paper, published in September 2018, the authors moderate their original claim by concluding that quantum theory cannot be extrapolated to complex systems, at least not in a straightforward manner. The purpose of this article is to offer a careful reconstruction of the F-R argument, which allows us to show that: (i) the argument can be more clearly formulated with no reference to what subjects know or see, but rather only in terms of quantum propositions, (ii) in contrast to what some commentators suppose, the argument does not require the hypothesis of collapse to arrive to its conclusion, and (iii) the contradiction resulting from the F-R argument is inferred by making classical conjunctions between different and incompatible contexts. On the basis of this clarification, we will finally argue that the conclusion of the F-R argument is not as novel and original as its great impact might make us to suppose.
A recent paper "Single-world interpretations of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent" [arXiv:1604.07422] by D. Frauchiger and R. Renner has attracted a considerable interest of a broader physics audience and shortly elicited a number of replies. In spite of the objections that ensued, we find that significant part of the controversial initial claim has not been refuted - on the contrary, arguments presented both in the initial paper and in the replies seem to leave no longer room for the basic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. We revisit the controversy trying to pinpoint the exact phenomenon that lies in its core, pointing out to some aspects of the problem that seem to have been mostly overlooked. Taking all conclusions into account, we here propose novel ways to approach the ostensible paradox, in which the Copenhagen interpretation is naturally preserved. Whereas arguments presented in Frauchiger and Renner paper and the replies that followed revolve over whether Wigner's friend would perceive only one or both of the possible outcomes, we offer the third, pretty obvious solution - namely, that Wigner's friend, in the well known setup, would subjectively perceive {\it none} of the potentially conflicting outcomes. As a side note, we also argue that, contrary to the often stated beliefs, hypothetical real experimental realization of Wigner's friend thought experiment actually would not provide us with any new insight into the quantum mechanics.