Relational Quantum Mechanics

Vincenzo Fano, Marco Sanchioni

R. Muciño, Elias Okon, Daniel Sudarsky

Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz, Marek Żukowski

Abstract Aurélien Drezet has attempted in Found. Phys. 54(1), 5 (2023) to defend Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) against our recent critique, entitled Relational Quantum Mechanics is incompatible with quantum mechanics, published in Quantum 7, 1015 (2023). Drezet not only misrepresents our work, but he also misconstructs the very theory (RQM) that he claims to defend.

Jay Lawrence, Markiewicz, Marcin, Marek Żukowski

In this comment we answer to the recent critique of our article [arXiv:2208.11793] about Relational Quantum Mechanics (RQM) by Aurélien Drezet [arXiv:2209.01237]. Here we point out that our critical analysis of RQM was precisely based on the most recent formulation of RQM, and that the theses found in the critique are based on neither RQM assumptions nor on our arguments.

Claudio Calosi, Timotheus Riedel

Jay Lawrence, Marcin Markiewicz, Marek Żukowski

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.