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:2501.03274 · Foundations of Physics

A No-Go Result for QBism

Shan Gao

Published Oct 1, 2021• 1 citation
arXivHTMLPDF
DOI
10.1007/s10701-021-00505-1

Related papers

Why QBism is immune to no-go theorems

Ruediger Schack

Bulletin of the American Physical Society•Mar 8, 2019•0 citations

Introducing QBism

Christopher A. Fuchs

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2014•11 citations

A Critic Looks at QBism

Guido Bacciagaluppi

Springer eBooks•Jan 1, 2014•9 citations

QBism

WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks•Oct 8, 2018•0 citations

QBism Is Not So Simply Dismissed

Ali Barzegar

arXiv:2006.02790•Foundations of Physics•May 19, 2020•23 citations

QBism on Locality and Nonlocality

John B. DeBrota, Christopher A. Fuchs, Rüdiger Schack

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.

quant-pharXiv:2608.05368•Aug 7, 2026•0 citations
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.