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:2110.03610 · Foundations of Physics

Relational Quantum Mechanics is About Facts, Not States: A Reply to Pienaar and Brukner

Andrea Di Biagio, Carlo Rovelli C

Published Jun 1, 2022• 80 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

In recent works, Časlav Brukner and Jacques Pienaar have raised interesting objections to the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics. We answer these objections in detail and show that, far from questioning the viability of the interpretation, they sharpen and clarify it.
DOI
10.1007/s10701-022-00579-5

Related papers

Is Relational Quantum Mechanics about Facts? If So, Whose? A Reply to Di Biagio and Rovelli's Comment on Brukner and Pienaar

Blake C. Stacey

Brukner and Pienaar have critiqued the Relational Quantum Mechanics of Rovelli, and together with Di Biagio, the latter has replied. I point out a few places where, in my view, that reply needs clarification.

arXiv:2112.07830•Dec 15, 2021•1 citation

In defense of Relational Quantum Mechanics: A note on `Qubits are not observers'

Aurélien Drezet

This is a short note to answer Brukner's objection [see arXiv:2107.03513] to Rovelli's theory and concerning the preferred basis problem.

arXiv:2202.02615•Feb 5, 2022•1 citation

The De-Relationalizing of Relational Quantum Mechanics

Blake C. Stacey

A recent phase transition in the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics (RQM) is situated in its historical context, and the novelty of the post-transition viewpoint is questioned.

arXiv:2211.03230•Nov 6, 2022•0 citations

Relative facts do not exist. Relational Quantum Mechanics is Incompatible with Quantum Mechanics. Response to the critique by Aurélien Drezet

Jay Lawrence, Markiewicz, Marcin, Marek Żukowski

In this comment we answer to the recent critique of our article [arXiv:2208.11793] about Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) by Aurélien Drezet [arXiv:2209.01237]. Here we point out that our critical analysis of RQM was precisely based on the most recent formulation of RQM, and that the theses found in the critique are based on neither RQM assumptions nor on our arguments.

arXiv:2210.09025•Oct 14, 2022•2 citations

Relative Facts of Relational Quantum Mechanics are Incompatible with Quantum Mechanics

Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz, Marek Żukowski

Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) claims to be an interpretation of quantum theory \cite{Rovelli.21}. However, there are significant departures from quantum theory: (i) in RQM measurement outcomes arise from interactions which entangle a system S and an observer A without decoherence, and (ii) such an outcome is a "fact" relative to the observer A , but it is not a fact relative to another observer B who has not interacted with S or A during the foregoing measurement process. For B the system S⊗A remains entangled. We derive a GHZ-like contradiction showing that relative facts described by these statements are incompatible with quantum theory. Hence Relational Quantum Mechanics should not be considered an interpretation of quantum theory, according to a criterion for interpretations that we have introduced. The criterion states that whenever an interpretation introduces a notion of outcomes, these outcomes, whatever they are, must follow the probability distribution specified by the Born rule.

arXiv:2208.11793•Quantum•May 23, 2023•14 citations

An Attempt to Understand Relational Quantum Mechanics

PEKKA J. LAHTI, Juha-Pekka Pellonpää

Abstract We search for a possible mathematical formulation of some of the key ideas of the relational interpretation of quantum mechanics and study their consequences. We also briefly overview some proposals of relational quantum mechanics for an axiomatic reconstruction of the Hilbert space formulation of quantum mechanics.

arXiv:2207.01380•International Journal of Theoretical Physics•Aug 3, 2023•2 citations
Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) claims to be an interpretation of quantum theory \cite{Rovelli.21}. However, there are significant departures from quantum theory: (i) in RQM measurement outcomes arise from interactions which entangle a system S and an observer A without decoherence, and (ii) such an outcome is a "fact" relative to the observer A , but it is not a fact relative to another observer B who has not interacted with S or A during the foregoing measurement process. For B the system S⊗A remains entangled. We derive a GHZ-like contradiction showing that relative facts described by these statements are incompatible with quantum theory. Hence Relational Quantum Mechanics should not be considered an interpretation of quantum theory, according to a criterion for interpretations that we have introduced. The criterion states that whenever an interpretation introduces a notion of outcomes, these outcomes, whatever they are, must follow the probability distribution specified by the Born rule.