1Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627, USA
2QUANTIC lab, INRIA, 2 Rue Simone IFF, 75012 Paris, France
3Institute for Quantum Studies, Chapman University, Orange, CA 92866, USA
Find this paper interesting or want to discuss? Scite or leave a comment on SciRate.
Abstract
The Wigner’s friend paradox concerns one of the most puzzling problems of quantum mechanics: the consistent description of multiple nested observers. Recently, a variation of Wigner’s gedankenexperiment, introduced by Frauchiger and Renner, has lead to new debates about the self-consistency of quantum mechanics. At the core of the paradox lies the description of an observer and the object it measures as a closed system obeying the Schrödinger equation. We revisit this assumption to derive a necessary condition on a quantum system to behave as an observer. We then propose a simple single-photon interferometric setup implementing Frauchiger and Renner’s scenario, and use the derived condition to shed a new light on the assumptions leading to their paradox. From our description, we argue that the three apparently incompatible properties used to question the consistency of quantum mechanics correspond to two logically distinct contexts: either one assumes that Wigner has full control over his friends’ lab, or conversely that some parts of the labs remain unaffected by Wigner’s subsequent measurements. The first context may be seen as the quantum erasure of the memory of Wigner’s friend. We further show these properties are associated with observables which do not commute, and therefore cannot take well-defined values simultaneously. Consequently, the three contradictory properties never hold simultaneously.
Featured image: Left: The recently introduced variation on Wigner’s friend scenario involves an observer making a measurement on two labs, each containing another observer. Right: We propose a simplification of the thought experiment involving a single-photon interferometer, highlighting that the contradictory conclusions of the agents correspond to different experimental contexts.
Popular summary
Here, we gain new insights into this situation by showing that the conclusions involved in the paradox are actually drawn from two incompatible experimental contexts, and are therefore never realized simultaneously. To make this clear, we propose a simplification of the thought experiment involving a single-photon interferometer, in which the two different experimental setups are transparent. In addition, we relate these two setups to the capacity of the agent to behave as an observer – able of doing a measurement – or not, which we identify with the presence of a stable memory in which the measurement outcome can be stored. Without assuming the measurement postulate, our approach provides an operational framework to distinguish systems behaving as observers from those which must be modelled with the Schrödinger equation.
► BibTeX data
► References
[1] Wigner, E. P. Remarks on the Mind-Body Question. In Symmetries and Reflections, 171–184 (Indiana University Press, 1967). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78374-6_20.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-78374-6_20
[2] Heisenberg, W. The Physical Principles of the Quantum Theory (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1930). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-61742-3_10.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-61742-3_10
[3] Frauchiger, D. & Renner, R. Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself. Nat. Commun. 9, 1–10 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05739-8.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-05739-8
[4] Sudbery, A. The hidden assumptions of Frauchiger and Renner (2019). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1905.13248v2. arXiv:1905.13248.
arXiv:1905.13248
[5] Nurgalieva, N. & del Rio, L. Inadequacy of modal logic in quantum settings. In Selinger, P. & Chiribella, G. (eds.) Proceedings of the 15th International Conference on Quantum Physics and Logic, Halifax, Canada, 3-7th June 2018, vol. 287 of Electronic Proceedings in Theoretical Computer Science, 267–297 (Open Publishing Association, 2019). URL https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.287.16.
https://doi.org/10.4204/EPTCS.287.16
[6] Healey, R. Quantum Theory and the Limits of Objectivity. Found. Phys. 48, 1568–1589 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-018-0216-6.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-018-0216-6
[7] Lazarovici, D. & Hubert, M. How Quantum Mechanics can consistently describe the use of itself. Sci. Rep. 9, 1–8 (2019). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37535-1.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-37535-1
[8] Fortin, S. & Lombardi, O. Wigner and his many friends: A new no-go result? arXiv (2019). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1904.07412v1. 1904.07412.
arXiv:1904.07412v1
[9] Waaijer, M. & van Neerven, J. Relational analysis of the Frauchiger–Renner paradox and existence of records from the past. arXiv (2019). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1902.07139v1. 1902.07139.
arXiv:1902.07139v1
[10] Baumann, V. & Wolf, S. On Formalisms and Interpretations. Quantum 2, 99 (2018). 1710.07212v6. URL https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-10-15-99.
https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2018-10-15-99
http://1710.07212v6
[11] Krismer, R. Representation Lost: The Case for a Relational Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Entropy 20, 975 (2018). URL https://doi.org/10.3390/e20120975.
https://doi.org/10.3390/e20120975
[12] Stacey, B. C. On QBism and Assumption (Q). arXiv (2019). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/1907.03805v2. 1907.03805.
arXiv:1907.03805v2
[13] Losada, M., Laura, R. & Lombardi, O. Frauchiger-Renner argument and quantum histories. Phys. Rev. A 100, 052114 (2019). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.052114.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.100.052114
[14] Bub, J. Understanding the Frauchiger–Renner Argument. Found. Phys. 51, 36–9 (2021). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-021-00420-5.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-021-00420-5
[15] Nurgalieva, Nuriya & Renner, Renato, Testing quantum theory with thought experiments. Contemp. Phys. 61, 193–216 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2021.1880075.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00107514.2021.1880075
[16] Bong, K.-W. et al. A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox. Nat. Phys. 1–7 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0990-x.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-020-0990-x
[17] Deutsch, D. Quantum theory as a universal physical theory. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 24, 1–41 (1985). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00670071.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00670071
[18] Matzkin, A. & Sokolovski, D. Wigner’s friend, Feynman’s paths and material records. EPL 131, 40001 (2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/131/40001.
https://doi.org/10.1209/0295-5075/131/40001
[19] Schrödinger, E. Die gegenwärtige Situation in der Quantenmechanik. Naturwissenschaften 23, 807–812 (1935). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01491987.
https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01491987
[20] Zurek, W. H. Quantum Darwinism. Nat. Phys. 5, 181–188 (2009). URL https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1202.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nphys1202
[21] von Neumann, J. Mathematical Foundations of Quantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1955).
[22] Proietti, M. et al. Experimental test of local observer independence. Sci. Adv. 5, eaaw9832 (2019). URL https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832.
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aaw9832
[23] Scully, M. O. & Drühl, K. Quantum eraser: A proposed photon correlation experiment concerning observation and “delayed choice” in quantum mechanics. Phys. Rev. A 25, 2208–2213 (1982). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2208.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.25.2208
[24] Kim, Y.-H., Yu, R., Kulik, S. P., Shih, Y. & Scully, M. O. Delayed ”Choice” Quantum Eraser. Phys. Rev. Lett. 84, 1–5 (2000). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.84.1
[25] Walborn, S. P., Terra Cunha, M. O., Pádua, S. & Monken, C. H. Double-slit quantum eraser. Phys. Rev. A 65, 033818 (2002). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.033818.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.65.033818
[26] Hardy, L. Quantum mechanics, local realistic theories, and Lorentz-invariant realistic theories. Phys. Rev. Lett. 68, 2981–2984 (1992). URL https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.2981.
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.68.2981
[27] Bohr, N. The causality problem in atomic physics. In New Theories in Physics, 11–30 (International Institute of Intellectual Cooperation, Warsaw, 1939). URL https://doi.org/10.1016/S1876-0503(08)70376-1.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1876-0503(08)70376-1
[28] Bub, J. `Two Dogmas’ Redux. In Orly Shenker and Meir Hemmo (eds), Quantum, Probability, Logic: The Work and Influence of Itamar Pitowsky, 199-–215 (Springer, 2020). URL https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34316-3. 1907.06240.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-34316-3
[29] Bub, J. & Pitowsky, I. Two dogmas about quantum mechanics. In Simon Saunders, Jonathan Barrett, Adrian Kent, and David Wallace (eds), Many Worlds?: Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality (Oxford Scholarship Online, 2010). URL https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199560561.003.0016. 0712.4258.
https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199560561.003.0016
[30] Fuchs, C. A. & Schack, R. Quantum-Bayesian Coherence. arXiv (2009). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/0906.2187v1. 0906.2187.
arXiv:0906.2187v1
[31] Fuchs, C. A. & Stacey, B. C. QBism: Quantum Theory as a Hero’s Handbook. In Ernst M. Rasel, Wolfgang P. Schleich, Sabine Wölk (eds), Proceedings of the International School of Physics “Enrico Fermi”: Foundations of Quantum Theory, 133-–202 (IOS Press, 2019). URL https://doi.org/10.3254/978-1-61499-937-9-133. 1612.07308.
https://doi.org/10.3254/978-1-61499-937-9-133
[32] DeBrota, J. B., Fuchs, C. A. & Schack, R. Respecting One’s Fellow: QBism’s Analysis of Wigner’s Friend. arXiv (2020). URL https://arxiv.org/abs/2008.03572v1. 2008.03572.
arXiv:2008.03572v1
Cited by
[1] Varun Narasimhachar, “Agents governed by quantum mechanics can use it intersubjectively and consistently”, arXiv:2010.01167.
[2] D. Sokolovski and A. Matzkin, “Extended Wigner’s friend problem and the internal consistency of standard quantum mechanics”, arXiv:2102.08709.
The above citations are from SAO/NASA ADS (last updated successfully 2021-07-08 10:24:47). The list may be incomplete as not all publishers provide suitable and complete citation data.
Could not fetch Crossref cited-by data during last attempt 2021-07-08 10:24:43: Could not fetch cited-by data for 10.22331/q-2021-07-08-498 from Crossref. This is normal if the DOI was registered recently.
This Paper is published in Quantum under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license. Copyright remains with the original copyright holders such as the authors or their institutions.
PlatoAi. Web3 Reimagined. Data Intelligence Amplified.
Source: https://quantum-journal.org/papers/q-2021-07-08-498/
