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:2110.07743 · The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

On the Objectivity of Measurement Outcomes

Elias Okon

Published Jan 21, 2022• 3 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.1086/719046

Related papers

A No-Go Theorem for Observer-Independent Facts

Časlav Brukner

In his famous thought experiment, Wigner assigns an entangled state to the composite quantum system made up of Wigner's friend and her observed system. While the two of them have different accounts of the process, each Wigner and his friend can in principle verify his/her respective state assignments by performing an appropriate measurement. As manifested through a click in a detector or a specific position of the pointer, the outcomes of these measurements can be regarded as reflecting directly observable "facts". Reviewing arXiv:1507.05255, I will derive a no-go theorem for observer-independent facts, which would be common both for Wigner and the friend. I will then analyze this result in the context of a newly-derived theorem arXiv:1604.07422, where Frauchiger and Renner prove that "single-world interpretations of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent". It is argued that "self-consistency" has the same implications as the assumption that observational statements of different observers can be compared in a single (and hence an observer-independent) theoretical framework. The latter, however, may not be possible, if the statements are to be understood as relational in the sense that their determinacy is relative to an observer.

arXiv:1804.00749•Entropy•May 8, 2018•196 citations

A review and analysis of six extended Wigner's friend arguments

David Schmid, Yìlè Yīng, Matthew Leifer

The Wigner's friend thought experiment was intended to illustrate the difficulty one has in describing an agent as a quantum system when that agent performs a measurement. While it does pose a challenge to the orthodox interpretation of quantum theory, most modern interpretations have no trouble in resolving the difficulty. Recently, a number of extensions of Wigner's ideas have been proposed. We provide a gentle introduction to six such arguments, modifying the specifics of many of them so that they are as simple and unified as possible. In particular, we show that all of the arguments hinge on assumptions about correlations between measurement outcomes that are not accessible to any observer, even in principle. We then provide a critical analysis of each argument, focusing especially on how well one can motivate the required assumptions regarding these inaccessible correlations. Although we argue that some of these assumptions are not entirely well-motivated, all of the arguments do shed light on the nature of quantum theory, especially when concerning the description of agents and their measurements.

arXiv:2308.16220•Aug 30, 2023•20 citations

Defending Quantum Objectivity

Elias Okon

A recent argument, attributed to Masanes, is claimed to show that the assumption that quantum measurements have definite, objective outcomes, is incompatible with quantum predictions. In this work, a detailed examination of the argument shows that it has a much narrower field of application than previously recognized. In particular, it is found: i) that the argument only applies to hidden-variable models with a particular feature; and ii) that such a feature is not present in most hidden-variable models, including pilot-wave theory. It is concluded that the argument does not succeed in calling into question the objectivity of quantum measurements.

arXiv:2103.11530•Mar 22, 2021•0 citations

Wigner's Friend paradoxes: consistency with weak-contextual and weak-macroscopic realism models

Ria Rushin Joseph, Manushan Thenabadu, Channa Hatharasinghe +4 more

Wigner's friend paradoxes highlight contradictions between measurements made by Friends inside a laboratory and superobservers outside a laboratory, who have access to an entangled state of the measurement apparatus. The contradictions lead to no-go theorems for observer-independent facts, thus challenging concepts of objectivity. Here, we examine the paradoxes from the perspective of establishing consistency with macroscopic realism. We present versions of the Brukner-Wigner-friend and Frauchiger-Renner paradoxes in which the spin-$1/2$ system measured by the Friends corresponds to two macroscopically distinct states. The local unitary operations $U_θ$ that determine the measurement setting $θ$ are carried out using nonlinear interactions, thereby ensuring measurements need only distinguish between the macroscopically distinct states. The macroscopic paradoxes are perplexing, seemingly suggesting there is no objectivity in a macroscopic limit. However, we demonstrate consistency with a contextual weak form of macroscopic realism (wMR): The premise wMR asserts that the system can be considered to have a definite spin outcome $λ_θ$, at the time after the system has undergone the unitary rotation $U_θ$ to prepare it in a suitable pointer basis. We further show that the paradoxical outcomes imply failure of deterministic macroscopic local realism, and arise when there are unitary interactions $U_θ$ occurring due to a change of measurement setting at both sites, with respect to the state prepared by each Friend. In models which validate wMR, there is a breakdown of a subset of the assumptions that constitute the Bell-Locality premise. A similar interpretation involving a weak contextual form of realism exists for the original paradoxes.

arXiv:2211.02877•Nov 5, 2022•1 citation

Macroscopic Wigner's friend paradoxes: Consistency with weak macroscopic realism

Ria Rushin Joseph, Manushan Thenabadu, Channa Hatharasinghe +4 more

Wigner's friend paradoxes highlight contradictions between measurements made by friends inside a laboratory and superobservers outside the laboratory, who have access to an entangled state of the measurement apparatus. Where there are two separated laboratories, the contradictions lead to no-go theorems for observer-independent facts, thus challenging concepts of objectivity. Here, we examine the paradoxes from the perspective of establishing consistency with macroscopic realism. We present versions of the Brukner-Wigner's-friend and Frauchiger-Renner paradoxes in which the spin-$1/2$ systems measured by the friends correspond to two macroscopically distinct states. The local unitary operations ${U}_{{\ensuremath{\theta}}_{j}}$ that determine the measurement settings ${\ensuremath{\theta}}_{j}$ at each laboratory are carried out using nonlinear interactions, which are tailored to ensure that measurements need only distinguish between the macroscopically distinct states. The macroscopic paradoxes are perplexing, seemingly suggesting there is no objectivity in a macroscopic limit. However, we demonstrate consistency with a contextual weak form of macroscopic realism (wMR): The premise wMR asserts that each system $j$ can be considered to have a definite spin outcome ${\ensuremath{\lambda}}_{{\ensuremath{\theta}}_{j}}$, at the time after the system has undergone the local unitary rotation ${U}_{{\ensuremath{\theta}}_{j}}$ to prepare it in a suitable measurement basis. We further show that the paradoxical outcomes imply failure of deterministic macroscopic local realism and arise when there are unitary interactions ${U}_{{\ensuremath{\theta}}_{j}}$ occurring due to a change of measurement setting at both laboratories, with respect to the state prepared by each friend. In models which validate wMR, there is a breakdown of a subset of the assumptions that constitute the Bell-locality premise. A similar interpretation involving a contextual weak form of local realism exists for the original paradoxes.

Physical Review A•Aug 13, 2024•3 citations

Wigner's convoluted friends

R. Muciño, Elias Okon

Considering a complicated extension of a Wigner's friend scenario, Frauchiger and Renner (FR) allegedly showed that "quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself". However, such a result has been under severe criticism, as it has been convincingly argued to crucially depend on an implicit, non-trivial assumption regarding details of the collapse mechanism. In consequence, the result is not as robust or general as intended. On top of all this, in this work we show that a much simpler arrangement--basically an EPR setting--is sufficient to derive a result fully analogous to that of FR. Moreover, we claim that all lessons learned from FR's result are essentially contained within the original EPR paper. We conclude that FR's result does not offer any novel insights into the conceptual problems of quantum theory.

arXiv:2006.16056•Jun 29, 2020•1 citation
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.
In his famous thought experiment, Wigner assigns an entangled state to the composite quantum system made up of Wigner's friend and her observed system. While the two of them have different accounts of the process, each Wigner and his friend can in principle verify his/her respective state assignments by performing an appropriate measurement. As manifested through a click in a detector or a specific position of the pointer, the outcomes of these measurements can be regarded as reflecting directly observable "facts". Reviewing arXiv:1507.05255, I will derive a no-go theorem for observer-independent facts, which would be common both for Wigner and the friend. I will then analyze this result in the context of a newly-derived theorem arXiv:1604.07422, where Frauchiger and Renner prove that "single-world interpretations of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent". It is argued that "self-consistency" has the same implications as the assumption that observational statements of different observers can be compared in a single (and hence an observer-independent) theoretical framework. The latter, however, may not be possible, if the statements are to be understood as relational in the sense that their determinacy is relative to an observer.
The Wigner's friend thought experiment was intended to illustrate the difficulty one has in describing an agent as a quantum system when that agent performs a measurement. While it does pose a challenge to the orthodox interpretation of quantum theory, most modern interpretations have no trouble in resolving the difficulty. Recently, a number of extensions of Wigner's ideas have been proposed. We provide a gentle introduction to six such arguments, modifying the specifics of many of them so that they are as simple and unified as possible. In particular, we show that all of the arguments hinge on assumptions about correlations between measurement outcomes that are not accessible to any observer, even in principle. We then provide a critical analysis of each argument, focusing especially on how well one can motivate the required assumptions regarding these inaccessible correlations. Although we argue that some of these assumptions are not entirely well-motivated, all of the arguments do shed light on the nature of quantum theory, especially when concerning the description of agents and their measurements.
A recent argument, attributed to Masanes, is claimed to show that the assumption that quantum measurements have definite, objective outcomes, is incompatible with quantum predictions. In this work, a detailed examination of the argument shows that it has a much narrower field of application than previously recognized. In particular, it is found: i) that the argument only applies to hidden-variable models with a particular feature; and ii) that such a feature is not present in most hidden-variable models, including pilot-wave theory. It is concluded that the argument does not succeed in calling into question the objectivity of quantum measurements.
Wigner's friend paradoxes highlight contradictions between measurements made by Friends inside a laboratory and superobservers outside a laboratory, who have access to an entangled state of the measurement apparatus. The contradictions lead to no-go theorems for observer-independent facts, thus challenging concepts of objectivity. Here, we examine the paradoxes from the perspective of establishing consistency with macroscopic realism. We present versions of the Brukner-Wigner-friend and Frauchiger-Renner paradoxes in which the spin-1/21/21/2 system measured by the Friends corresponds to two macroscopically distinct states. The local unitary operations UθU_θUθ​ that determine the measurement setting θθθ are carried out using nonlinear interactions, thereby ensuring measurements need only distinguish between the macroscopically distinct states. The macroscopic paradoxes are perplexing, seemingly suggesting there is no objectivity in a macroscopic limit. However, we demonstrate consistency with a contextual weak form of macroscopic realism (wMR): The premise wMR asserts that the system can be considered to have a definite spin outcome λθλ_θλθ​, at the time after the system has undergone the unitary rotation UθU_θUθ​ to prepare it in a suitable pointer basis. We further show that the paradoxical outcomes imply failure of deterministic macroscopic local realism, and arise when there are unitary interactions UθU_θUθ​ occurring due to a change of measurement setting at both sites, with respect to the state prepared by each Friend. In models which validate wMR, there is a breakdown of a subset of the assumptions that constitute the Bell-Locality premise. A similar interpretation involving a weak contextual form of realism exists for the original paradoxes.
Wigner's friend paradoxes highlight contradictions between measurements made by friends inside a laboratory and superobservers outside the laboratory, who have access to an entangled state of the measurement apparatus. Where there are two separated laboratories, the contradictions lead to no-go theorems for observer-independent facts, thus challenging concepts of objectivity. Here, we examine the paradoxes from the perspective of establishing consistency with macroscopic realism. We present versions of the Brukner-Wigner's-friend and Frauchiger-Renner paradoxes in which the spin-1/21/21/2 systems measured by the friends correspond to two macroscopically distinct states. The local unitary operations ${U}_{{\ensuremath{\theta}}_{j}}$ that determine the measurement settings ${\ensuremath{\theta}}_{j}$ at each laboratory are carried out using nonlinear interactions, which are tailored to ensure that measurements need only distinguish between the macroscopically distinct states. The macroscopic paradoxes are perplexing, seemingly suggesting there is no objectivity in a macroscopic limit. However, we demonstrate consistency with a contextual weak form of macroscopic realism (wMR): The premise wMR asserts that each system jjj can be considered to have a definite spin outcome ${\ensuremath{\lambda}}_{{\ensuremath{\theta}}_{j}}$, at the time after the system has undergone the local unitary rotation ${U}_{{\ensuremath{\theta}}_{j}}$ to prepare it in a suitable measurement basis. We further show that the paradoxical outcomes imply failure of deterministic macroscopic local realism and arise when there are unitary interactions ${U}_{{\ensuremath{\theta}}_{j}}$ occurring due to a change of measurement setting at both laboratories, with respect to the state prepared by each friend. In models which validate wMR, there is a breakdown of a subset of the assumptions that constitute the Bell-locality premise. A similar interpretation involving a contextual weak form of local realism exists for the original paradoxes.
Considering a complicated extension of a Wigner's friend scenario, Frauchiger and Renner (FR) allegedly showed that "quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself". However, such a result has been under severe criticism, as it has been convincingly argued to crucially depend on an implicit, non-trivial assumption regarding details of the collapse mechanism. In consequence, the result is not as robust or general as intended. On top of all this, in this work we show that a much simpler arrangement--basically an EPR setting--is sufficient to derive a result fully analogous to that of FR. Moreover, we claim that all lessons learned from FR's result are essentially contained within the original EPR paper. We conclude that FR's result does not offer any novel insights into the conceptual problems of quantum theory.