Recent no-go theorems on interpretations of quantum theory featuring an assumption of `Absoluteness of Observed Events' (AOE) are shown to have an unexpectedly strong corollary: one cannot reject AOE and at the same time assume that the `observed events' in question can all be embedded within a single background space-time common to all observers. Consequently, interpretations that reject AOE appear incompatible with a `block universe' view of space-time.
Recent no-go theorems on interpretations of quantum theory featuring an assumption of Absoluteness of Observed Events' (AOE) are shown to have an unexpectedly strong corollary: one cannot reject AOE and at the same time assume that the observed events' in question can all be embedded within a single background space-time common to all observers. Consequently, interpretations that reject AOE appear incompatible with a `block universe' view of space-time.
Abstract Recent no-go theorems on interpretations of quantum theory featuring an assumption of ‘Absoluteness of Observed Events’ (AOE) are shown to have an unexpectedly strong corollary: one cannot reject AOE and at the same time assume that the ‘observed events’ in question can all be (i) single-valued and (ii) embedded within a single background space-time common to all observers. Consequently, interpretations that reject AOE appear incompatible with a ‘block universe’ view of space-time.
Recently Pienaar (2026), building on work of Cavalcanti (2021), has shown that QBism cannot always assume distinct observers' quantum-measurement outcomes---say, of Wigner and his friend---are embedded in a single spacetime. This follows from QBism's rejection of the `Absoluteness of Observed Events' assumption in the Bong et al. no-go theorem. Thus, QBism has no choice but to treat the notion of spacetime every bit as personalistic as it treats quantum states and quantum measurement outcomes. In a way, this is not a surprise to QBists, as they have taken the notion of `personalist spacetimes' to be the ansatz most compatible with their other views since at least 2009. But it does enjoin us to finally make crystal clear the sense in which QBism is a purely local interpretation of quantum mechanics despite this new theorem and despite quantum theory's age-old violation of Bell's inequalities. With the extra clarity we also hope to poise QBism for a distinctly new way to approach issues at the interface of quantum theory and gravity.
Wigner's Friend-type paradoxes challenge the assumption that events are absolute—that when we measure a system, we obtain a single result, which is not relative to anything or anyone else. These paradoxes highlight the tension between quantum theory and our intuitions about reality being observer independent. Building on a recent result that developed these paradoxes into a no-go theorem, namely, the , we introduce the , a time-ordered analog of it. In this framework, we replace the usual locality assumption with and show that, when combined with the assumptions of (AOE), , and , we obtain a Causal Time-Symmetric Friendliness inequality. We then show that quantum mechanics violates this inequality and is therefore incompatible with at least one of these assumptions. To probe which assumption might be incompatible, we then examine whether AOE in its entirety is essential for this no-go result. We propose a weaker, operational form of AOE that still leads to inequalities that quantum mechanics violates. This result shows that even under relaxed assumptions, quantum theory resists reconciliation with classical notions of absolute events, reinforcing the foundational significance of Wigner's Friend-type paradoxes in timelike scenarios.
The notion of measurements is central to many debates in quantum mechanics. One critical point is whether a measurement can be regarded as an absolute event, giving the same result for any observer in an irreversible manner. Using ideas from the gedanken experiment of Wigner's friend, it has been argued that, when combined with the assumptions of locality and no superdeterminism, regarding a measurement as an absolute event is incompatible with the universal validity of quantum mechanics. We consider a weaker assumption: Is the measurement event realized relatively to the observer when he only partially observed the outcome? We proposed a protocol to show that this assumption in conjunction with the natural assumptions of no superdeterminism and locality is also not compatible with the universal validity of quantum mechanics.
Recent no-go theorems based on extended Wigner's Friend scenarios (EWFS) reveal a deep tension between the universal validity of quantum theory and local friendliness (LF), the conjunction of three natural assumptions: the absoluteness of observed events, locality, and no-superdeterminism. In a recent work, Adlam argues that this tension can be dissolved by appealing to quantum reference frames (QRFs). We present and critically assess her proposal. We show that her proposed resolution does not arise from QRFs, but instead relies on three independent modifications: certain degrees of freedom are always definite, observers can flip upon measuring spins, and the outcomes the superobservers record and use to test the inequalities are not their friends' observed results. The proposal and the arguments for the plausibility of these modifications rest on several misconceptions about QRFs and EWFS, which we rectify. We conclude that, within standard quantum theory, quantum reference frames do not evade the EWFS no-go theorems.
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.