The concept of an isolated system, and Frauchiger and Renner's extended `Wigner's friend' scenario are discussed. It is argued that: (i) it is questionable whether the approximation of the isolated system is valid when measurement-like processes are involved; (ii) one may infer, from Frauchiger and Renner's thought-experiment, and similar thought-experiments, that any interpretation of quantum theory involving *subjective collapse* fails; (iii) this does not distinguish single-world from many-world (relative-state) interpretations of quantum theory; (iv) reasoning from observations has to take into account the possible quantum-erasure of those observations if it is to be valid reasoning; (v) a single-world interpretation is valid if certain kinds of outcome are not quantum-erased in the future.
The concept of an isolated system, and Frauchiger and Renner's extended `Wigner's friend' scenario are discussed. It is argued that: (i) it is questionable whether the approximation of the isolated system is valid when measurement-like processes are involved; (ii) one may infer, from Frauchiger and Renner's thought-experiment, and similar thought-experiments, that any interpretation of quantum theory involving subjective collapse fails; (iii) this does not distinguish single-world from many-world (relative-state) interpretations of quantum theory; (iv) reasoning from observations has to take into account the possible quantum-erasure of those observations if it is to be valid reasoning; (v) a single-world interpretation is valid if certain kinds of outcome are not quantum-erased in the future.
Frauchiger and Renner have recently claimed to prove that “Single-world interpretations of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent”. This is contradicted by a construction due to Bell, inspired by Bohmian mechanics, which shows that any quantum system can be modelled in such a way that there is only one “world” at any time, but the predictions of quantum theory are reproduced. This Bell–Bohmian theory is applied to the experiment proposed by Frauchiger and Renner, and their argument is critically examined. It is concluded that it is their version of “standard quantum theory”, incorporating state vector collapse upon measurement, that is not self-consistent.
A recent paper "Single-world interpretations of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent" [arXiv:1604.07422] by D. Frauchiger and R. Renner has attracted a considerable interest of a broader physics audience and shortly elicited a number of replies. In spite of the objections that ensued, we find that significant part of the controversial initial claim has not been refuted - on the contrary, arguments presented both in the initial paper and in the replies seem to leave no longer room for the basic Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. We revisit the controversy trying to pinpoint the exact phenomenon that lies in its core, pointing out to some aspects of the problem that seem to have been mostly overlooked. Taking all conclusions into account, we here propose novel ways to approach the ostensible paradox, in which the Copenhagen interpretation is naturally preserved. Whereas arguments presented in Frauchiger and Renner paper and the replies that followed revolve over whether Wigner's friend would perceive only one or both of the possible outcomes, we offer the third, pretty obvious solution - namely, that Wigner's friend, in the well known setup, would subjectively perceive {\it none} of the potentially conflicting outcomes. As a side note, we also argue that, contrary to the often stated beliefs, hypothetical real experimental realization of Wigner's friend thought experiment actually would not provide us with any new insight into the quantum mechanics.
Schrodinger's cat and Wigner's friend paradoxes are analyzed using the `wave-particle non-dualistic interpretation of quantum mechanics at a single-quantum level' and are shown to be non-paradoxes within the quantum formalism. Then, the extended version of Wigner's friend thought experiment, proposed in a recent article titled, ``Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself '', Nature Communications {\bf 9}, 3711 (2018), by Frauchiger and Renner (FR) is considered. In quantum mechanics, it's well-known that, statistically observing a large number of identical quantum systems at some particular quantum state, which results in Born's probability, and merely inferring its presence in the same quantum state with the same probability yield distinct physical phenomena. If this fact is not taken care while interpreting any experimental outcomes, then FR type paradoxes pop up. ``What an astonishingly self-consistent the Quantum Theory is!' - is explicitly worked out in the case of FR gedankenexperiment. The present work shows the importance of single-quantum phenomenon for the non-paradoxical interpretation of statistically observed experimental outcomes.
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.
This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the Frauchiger–Renner paradox (2018), a significant thought experiment that demonstrates a logical contradiction arising when standard quantum mechanics is applied to nested observers. Building on Wigner’s friend scenario, it examines the formal setup, derives the contradiction from assumptions of universality, the Born rule, and self-consistency in multi-agent reasoning, and evaluates proposed resolutions across major interpretations of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen, Everettian/many-worlds, relational, QBism, decoherent histories, and objective collapse theories). The work explores historical context, epistemological implications for observation, objectivity, and intersubjectivity, as well as recent experimental probes and theoretical refinements. It argues that the paradox reveals deep tensions in applying quantum theory to complex, self-referential scenarios involving observers (2026).
We discuss the no-go theorem of Frauchiger and Renner based on an extended Wigner's friend thought experiment which is supposed to show that any single-world interpretation of quantum mechanics leads to inconsistent predictions if it is applicable on all scales. We show that no such inconsistency occurs if one considers a complete description of the physical situation. We then discuss implications of the thought experiment that have not been clearly addressed in the original paper, including a tension between relativity and nonlocal effects predicted by quantum mechanics. Our discussion applies in particular to Bohmian mechanics.