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:2208.11793 · Quantum

Relative Facts of Relational Quantum Mechanics are Incompatible with Quantum Mechanics

Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz, Marek Żukowski

Published May 23, 2023• 14 citations
arXivHTMLPDF

Abstract

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.

DOI
10.22331/q-2023-05-23-1015

Related papers

On the consistency of relative facts

Eric G. Cavalcanti, Andrea Di Biagio, Carlo Rovelli C

Abstract Lawrence et al. have presented an argument purporting to show that “relative facts do not exist” and, consequently, “Relational Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with quantum mechanics”. The argument is based on a GHZ-like contradiction between constraints satisfied by measurement outcomes in an extended Wigner’s friend scenario. Here we present a strengthened version of the argument, and show why, contrary to the claim by Lawrence et al., these arguments do not contradict the consistency of a theory of relative facts. Rather, considering this argument helps clarify how one should not think about a theory of relative facts, like RQM.

arXiv:2305.07343•European Journal for Philosophy of Science•Nov 22, 2023•8 citations

The Relational Interpretation of Quantum Physics

Carlo Rovelli C

The relational interpretation (or RQM, for Relational Quantum Mechanics) solves the measurement problem by considering an ontology of sparse relative events, or "facts". Facts are realized in interactions between any two physical systems and are relative to these systems. RQM's technical core is the realisation that quantum transition amplitudes determine physical probabilities only when their arguments are facts relative to the same system. The relativity of facts can be neglected in the approximation where decoherence hides interference, thus making facts approximately stable.

arXiv:2109.09170•Sep 19, 2021•3 citations

Relational Quantum Mechanics with Cross-Perspective Links Postulate: an Internally Inconsistent Scheme

Markiewicz, Marcin, Marek Żukowski

We discuss the status of relative facts - the central concept of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) - in the context of the new amendment to RQM called cross-perspective links postulate. The new axiom states that by a proper measurement one learns the value of the relative outcome/fact earlier obtained by another observer-system. We discuss a Wigner-Friend-type scenario in which, without cross-perspective links postulate, relative facts have no predictive or causal power, whereas including cross-perspective links makes them effectively hidden variables, which causally determine outcomes of specific measurements. However, cross-perspective links axiom invalidates the other axiom of RQM, the one which states that in a Wigner-Friend scenario, RQM assigns an entangled state to the Friend and System after the unitary transformation of their interaction, despite the appearance of the relative fact for the Friend. This quantum mechanical state according to RQM properly describes the situation for Wigner. From this we show that RQM with cross-perspective links axiom is an internally inconsistent hidden variable theory and therefore cannot be treated as an interpretation of quantum mechanics in any sense.

arXiv:2312.07056•Dec 12, 2023•0 citations

Assessing Relational Quantum Mechanics

R. Muciño, Elias Okon, Daniel Sudarsky

Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum theory based on the idea of abolishing the notion of absolute states of systems, in favor of states of systems relative to other systems. Such a move is claimed to solve the conceptual problems of standard quantum mechanics. Moreover, RQM has been argued to account for all quantum correlations without invoking non-local effects and, in spite of embracing a fully relational stance, to successfully explain how different observers exchange information. In this work, we carry out a thorough assessment of RQM and its purported achievements. We find that it fails to address the conceptual problems of standard quantum mechanics--related to the lack of clarity in its ontology and the rules that govern its behavior--and that it leads to serious conceptual problems of its own. We also uncover as unwarranted the claims that RQM can correctly explain information exchange among observers, and that it accommodates all quantum correlations without invoking non-local influences. We conclude that RQM is unsuccessful in its attempt to provide a satisfactory understanding of the quantum world.

arXiv:2105.13338•May 27, 2021•7 citations

Securing the Objectivity of Relative Facts in the Quantum World

Richard A Healey

Abstract This essay compares and contrasts relational quantum mechanics (RQM) with a pragmatist view of quantum theory (DP). It first explains important points of agreement. Then it points to two problems faced by RQM and sketch DP’s solutions to analogous problems. As both RQM and DP have taken the Born Rule to require relative facts, the essay next says what these might be. The main objection to RQM as originally conceived is that its ontology of relative facts is incompatible with scientific objectivity and undercuts the evidential base of quantum theory. In contrast, DP’s relative facts have all the objectivity one needs to accept quantum theory as scientific knowledge. But a very recent modification to RQM has successfully addressed the main objection, bringing the two views into even closer alignment.

arXiv:2207.01966•Foundations of Physics•Aug 1, 2022•27 citations

Explanatory Adequacy in Relational Quantum Mechanics: From Relational Events to Relational Histories

Behruz Ebrahimi

This paper examines the explanatory adequacy of formulations of relational quantum mechanics by distinguishing two levels of relationality. Intra-event relationality concerns the specification of a fact that obtains relative to a system in a particular interaction; inter-event relationality concerns the constraints connecting an event to subsequent events, physical records, and a relational history. Using established results from measurement theory, we show that an effect can specify the statistics of the current outcome without uniquely determining the conditional operation or the statistics of subsequent sequences. Likewise, a fixed coupling and ready state do not uniquely determine the structure of retrievable records unless the readout is specified. We accordingly introduce a task-relative criterion of explanatory adequacy: the required structures must be assessed against the particular explanatory role that a formulation assigns to an event, a relational fact, or a link between perspectives. The conclusion is not that RQM must derive instruments, dynamics, or linking rules from relational principles. A formulation that explicitly incorporates these structures can be fully adequate for the task in question. The paper contributes a distinction between intra-event and inter-event adequacy, a unified criterion for the division of explanatory labor, and a task-relative definition of an architectural deficit.

•Oct 1, 2026•0 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.
Abstract Lawrence et al. have presented an argument purporting to show that “relative facts do not exist” and, consequently, “Relational Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with quantum mechanics”. The argument is based on a GHZ-like contradiction between constraints satisfied by measurement outcomes in an extended Wigner’s friend scenario. Here we present a strengthened version of the argument, and show why, contrary to the claim by Lawrence et al., these arguments do not contradict the consistency of a theory of relative facts. Rather, considering this argument helps clarify how one should not think about a theory of relative facts, like RQM.
The relational interpretation (or RQM, for Relational Quantum Mechanics) solves the measurement problem by considering an ontology of sparse relative events, or "facts". Facts are realized in interactions between any two physical systems and are relative to these systems. RQM's technical core is the realisation that quantum transition amplitudes determine physical probabilities only when their arguments are facts relative to the same system. The relativity of facts can be neglected in the approximation where decoherence hides interference, thus making facts approximately stable.
We discuss the status of relative facts - the central concept of Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) - in the context of the new amendment to RQM called cross-perspective links postulate. The new axiom states that by a proper measurement one learns the value of the relative outcome/fact earlier obtained by another observer-system. We discuss a Wigner-Friend-type scenario in which, without cross-perspective links postulate, relative facts have no predictive or causal power, whereas including cross-perspective links makes them effectively hidden variables, which causally determine outcomes of specific measurements. However, cross-perspective links axiom invalidates the other axiom of RQM, the one which states that in a Wigner-Friend scenario, RQM assigns an entangled state to the Friend and System after the unitary transformation of their interaction, despite the appearance of the relative fact for the Friend. This quantum mechanical state according to RQM properly describes the situation for Wigner. From this we show that RQM with cross-perspective links axiom is an internally inconsistent hidden variable theory and therefore cannot be treated as an interpretation of quantum mechanics in any sense.
Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) is an interpretation of quantum theory based on the idea of abolishing the notion of absolute states of systems, in favor of states of systems relative to other systems. Such a move is claimed to solve the conceptual problems of standard quantum mechanics. Moreover, RQM has been argued to account for all quantum correlations without invoking non-local effects and, in spite of embracing a fully relational stance, to successfully explain how different observers exchange information. In this work, we carry out a thorough assessment of RQM and its purported achievements. We find that it fails to address the conceptual problems of standard quantum mechanics--related to the lack of clarity in its ontology and the rules that govern its behavior--and that it leads to serious conceptual problems of its own. We also uncover as unwarranted the claims that RQM can correctly explain information exchange among observers, and that it accommodates all quantum correlations without invoking non-local influences. We conclude that RQM is unsuccessful in its attempt to provide a satisfactory understanding of the quantum world.
Abstract This essay compares and contrasts relational quantum mechanics (RQM) with a pragmatist view of quantum theory (DP). It first explains important points of agreement. Then it points to two problems faced by RQM and sketch DP’s solutions to analogous problems. As both RQM and DP have taken the Born Rule to require relative facts, the essay next says what these might be. The main objection to RQM as originally conceived is that its ontology of relative facts is incompatible with scientific objectivity and undercuts the evidential base of quantum theory. In contrast, DP’s relative facts have all the objectivity one needs to accept quantum theory as scientific knowledge. But a very recent modification to RQM has successfully addressed the main objection, bringing the two views into even closer alignment.
This paper examines the explanatory adequacy of formulations of relational quantum mechanics by distinguishing two levels of relationality. Intra-event relationality concerns the specification of a fact that obtains relative to a system in a particular interaction; inter-event relationality concerns the constraints connecting an event to subsequent events, physical records, and a relational history. Using established results from measurement theory, we show that an effect can specify the statistics of the current outcome without uniquely determining the conditional operation or the statistics of subsequent sequences. Likewise, a fixed coupling and ready state do not uniquely determine the structure of retrievable records unless the readout is specified. We accordingly introduce a task-relative criterion of explanatory adequacy: the required structures must be assessed against the particular explanatory role that a formulation assigns to an event, a relational fact, or a link between perspectives. The conclusion is not that RQM must derive instruments, dynamics, or linking rules from relational principles. A formulation that explicitly incorporates these structures can be fully adequate for the task in question. The paper contributes a distinction between intra-event and inter-event adequacy, a unified criterion for the division of explanatory labor, and a task-relative definition of an architectural deficit.