Abstract The notorious Wigner’s friend thought experiment (and modifications thereof) has received renewed interest especially due to new arguments that force us to question some of the fundamental assumptions of quantum theory. In this paper, we formulate a no-go theorem for the persistent reality of Wigner’s friend’s perception, which allows us to conclude that the perceptions that the friend has of her own measurement outcomes at different times cannot “share the same reality”, if seemingly natural quantum mechanical assumptions are met. More formally, this means that, in a Wigner’s friend scenario, there is no joint probability distribution for the friend’s perceived measurement outcomes at two different times, that depends linearly on the initial state of the measured system and whose marginals reproduce the predictions of unitary quantum theory. This theorem entails that one must either (1) propose a nonlinear modification of the Born rule for two-time predictions, (2) sometimes prohibit the use of present information to predict the future—thereby reducing the predictive power of quantum theory—or (3) deny that unitary quantum mechanics makes valid single-time predictions for all observers. We briefly discuss which of the theorem’s assumptions are more likely to be dropped within various popular interpretations of quantum mechanics.
Abstract The notorious Wigner’s friend thought experiment (and modifications thereof) has received renewed interest especially due to new arguments that force us to question some of the fundamental assumptions of quantum theory. In this paper, we formulate a no-go theorem for the persistent reality of Wigner’s friend’s perception, which allows us to conclude that the perceptions that the friend has of her own measurement outcomes at different times cannot “share the same reality”, if seemingly natural quantum mechanical assumptions are met. More formally, this means that, in a Wigner’s friend scenario, there is no joint probability distribution for the friend’s perceived measurement outcomes at two different times, that depends linearly on the initial state of the measured system and whose marginals reproduce the predictions of unitary quantum theory. This theorem entails that one must either (1) propose a nonlinear modification of the Born rule for two-time predictions, (2) sometimes prohibit the use of present information to predict the future—thereby reducing the predictive power of quantum theory—or (3) deny that unitary quantum mechanics makes valid single-time predictions for all observers. We briefly discuss which of the theorem’s assumptions are more likely to be dropped within various popular interpretations of quantum mechanics.
How can we address the idea of observers in quantum mechanics? The long-standing Wigner’s friend thought experiment provides a conceptual framework for thinking about this question. It considers the the difficulty of reconciling unitary, evolution of systems and non-unitary state update after a making observations. Following from a recent suggested protocol with two friends that share and entangled state, we prove and investigate, in a photonic experiment, a strong no-go theorem for this Wigner’s friend scenario. Specifically, if quantum mechanics applies at the scale of observers, then there are constraints on the set of assumptions: locality; no-superdeterminism; and absoluteness of observed events. We note that this new theorem places strictly stronger constraints on physical reality than Bell’s theorem.
Does quantum theory apply at all scales, including that of observers? New light on this fundamental question has recently been shed through a resurgence of interest in the long-standing Wigner’s friend paradox. This is a thought experiment addressing the quantum measurement problem—the difficulty of reconciling the (unitary, deterministic) evolution of isolated systems and the (non-unitary, probabilistic) state update after a measurement. Here, by building on a scenario with two separated but entangled friends introduced by Brukner, we prove that if quantum evolution is controllable on the scale of an observer, then one of ‘No-Superdeterminism’, ‘Locality’ or ‘Absoluteness of Observed Events’—that every observed event exists absolutely, not relatively—must be false. We show that although the violation of Bell-type inequalities in such scenarios is not in general sufficient to demonstrate the contradiction between those three assumptions, new inequalities can be derived, in a theory-independent manner, that are violated by quantum correlations. This is demonstrated in a proof-of-principle experiment where a photon’s path is deemed an observer. We discuss how this new theorem places strictly stronger constraints on physical reality than Bell’s theorem. For a scenario of two separated but entangled observers, inequalities are derived from three fundamental assumptions. An experiment shows that these inequalities can be violated if quantum evolution is controllable on the scale of an observer.
Recent arguments, involving entangled systems shared by sets of Wigner's friend arrangements, allegedly show that the assumption that the experiments performed by the friends yield definite outcomes, is incompatible with quantum predictions. From this, it is concluded that the results of measurements cannot be thought of as being actual or objective. Here, I show that these arguments depend upon a mistaken assumption, regarding the ("mixed") correlations between the results of the friends and those of "the Wigners", which leads to invalid predictions. It is not, then, that the assumption of definite outcomes leads to trouble, but that the results derived with such an assumption are contrasted with faulty predictions. Next, I explore the more famous no-go theorems by Frauchiger and Renner and by Brukner, on which these recent arguments are motivated. Regarding the first, I show that, although it is cast in a different form, it also rests on the mistaken assumption regarding "mixed" correlations--rendering it invalid. Regarding Brukner's theorem, I point out that it depends on the quite unattractive assumption of locality, a fact that fully diminishes its force. Throughout, I illustrate my claims with explicit calculations within pilot-wave theory.
The quantum measurement problem can be regarded as the tension between the two alternative dynamics prescribed by quantum mechanics: the unitary evolution of the wave function and the state-update rule (or "collapse") at the instant a measurement takes place. The notorious Wigner's friend gedankenexperiment constitutes the paradoxical scenario in which different observers (one of whom is observed by the other) describe one and the same interaction differently, one –the Friend– via state-update and the other –Wigner– unitarily. This can lead to Wigner and his friend assigning different probabilities to the outcome of the same subsequent measurement. In this paper, we apply the Page-Wootters mechanism (PWM) as a timeless description of Wigner's friend-like scenarios. We show that the standard rules to assign two-time conditional probabilities within the PWM need to be modified to deal with the Wigner's friend gedankenexperiment. We identify three main definitions of such modified rules to assign two-time conditional probabilities, all of which reduce to standard quantum theory for non-Wigner's friend scenarios. However, when applied to the Wigner's friend setup each rule assigns different conditional probabilities, potentially resolving the probability-assignment paradox in a different manner. Moreover, one rule imposes strict limits on when a joint probability distribution for the measurement outcomes of Wigner and his Friend is well-defined, which single out those cases where Wigner's measurement does not disturb the Friend's memory and such a probability has an operational meaning in terms of collectible statistics. Interestingly, the same limits guarantee that said measurement outcomes fulfill the consistency condition of the consistent histories framework.
Abstract In this paper, we analyze the thought experiment of "Wigner's friend" and point out that new understanding should be made to Born's rule and measurement process: Born's rule is no longer seen as a rule based on the history of the quantum system's, and the measurement results are no longer directly related to the state of the measured object before the measurement. Inspired by Everett III and H. Zurek's views, we believe that Born's rule reflects the coordination between different parts of the measured results in quantum entanglement systems, so it has nothing to do with the history of particles themselves but rather with the history records. A new interpretation of quantum mechanics is proposed, which is an objective interpretation. Under this interpretation, micro-particles can also be assigned definite states before being observed. Based on this interpretation, Wigner's friend-like scenarios or paradoxes extending Wigner's friend-like scenarios can be effectively explained. The new interpretation brings brand-new perspectives to many quantum phenomena. We also point out potential applications of the new interpretation in the future.
In this paper, we show that Quantum Mechanics does not admit ontological models, in the sense that the quantum state of a system cannot correspond to a set of physical states representing the independent reality of the system. We show, via two thought experiments based on the Wigner's friend scenario, that if the ontic state of physical systems in the lab is the same for Wigner and for his friend, one of the following will be violated: PBR theorem, Quantum-theoretic predictions, and the "No-superdeterminism" assumption.