pith. sign in

arxiv: 2409.05491 · v2 · pith:63H5YODJnew · submitted 2024-09-09 · 🪐 quant-ph

A refined Frauchiger--Renner paradox based on strong contextuality

Laurens Walleghem , Rui Soares Barbosa , Matthew F. Pusey , Stefan Weigert This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 20:33 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🪐 quant-ph
keywords Frauchiger-Renner paradoxstrong contextualityGHZ-Mermin scenarioWigner's friendquantum foundationssuperobserverslogical contextuality
0
0 comments X

The pith

A GHZ-Mermin scenario produces an inconsistency in quantum theory without post-selection or quantum observers.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper establishes that logical contextuality, as seen in the GHZ-Mermin scenario, is the essential ingredient behind the Frauchiger-Renner paradox and can be used to create a stronger version of it. This GHZ-FR paradox arises when the strongly contextual GHZ-Mermin correlations are placed inside an agent-based setup that includes superobservers. Unlike the original, it requires neither post-selection on measurement results nor any observer to model another observer using quantum theory. A reader would care because the construction isolates contextuality as the source of the self-referential inconsistency and offers an extended form of Peres's dictum as a possible resolution under the assumption that quantum theory applies universally to superobservers.

Core claim

Embedding the strongly contextual GHZ-Mermin scenario into an agent-based thought experiment with superobservers yields a logical inconsistency when quantum theory is applied to describe its own use, without needing post-selection or quantum reasoning by any of the observers.

What carries the argument

The strong contextuality of the GHZ-Mermin scenario, which produces contradictions in the joint probability assignments required by different measurement contexts.

If this is right

  • The inconsistency holds even when every observer reasons only classically about the others.
  • Post-selection on particular outcomes is unnecessary to derive the paradox.
  • If quantum theory is taken to apply to superobservers, an extended version of Peres's dictum resolves the inconsistency.
  • Strong contextuality alone is enough to generate these extended Wigner's friend paradoxes.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same embedding technique could be tried with other strongly contextual sets such as those from the Kochen-Specker theorem.
  • The construction suggests that contextuality tests might be performed in multi-agent laboratory arrangements to check for similar inconsistencies.
  • The proposed resolution might extend to other self-referential scenarios that combine quantum measurements with classical reasoning about knowledge.

Load-bearing premise

The logical structure that produces inconsistency in the GHZ-Mermin scenario can be preserved when it is embedded into the agent-based scenario with superobservers.

What would settle it

An explicit realization of the GHZ-Mermin measurements inside a Wigner's friend laboratory setup that yields consistent probability assignments rather than the predicted contradiction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2409.05491 by Laurens Walleghem, Matthew F. Pusey, Rui Soares Barbosa, Stefan Weigert.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: (a): Schematic sketch of Wigner’s friend scenario. Wigner is a superobserver for his friend Bob, who [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: (a): Sketch of the FR paradox, where Ursula reasons about Bob who reasons about Alice who reasons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Mapping a Bell non-locality scenario (left) to an FR-like extended Wigner’s friend scenario (right). In [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (a): Pictorial representation of the scenario GHZ–FR protocol, with superobservers [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Possible lightcone structures of the agents in the GHZ–FR scenario, with Ursula, Valentina, and Wigner [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: An example of a reasoning situation following the GHZ–FR protocol as in Figure [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Assumptions leading to the GHZ–FR truth no-go theorem of Section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Assumptions leading to the GHZ–FR agreement no-go theorem of Section [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Comparing the assumptions of the FR paradox to those of the GHZ–FR no-go theorems. An assumption [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Two lightcone structures in which a paradox occurs in the GHZ–FR protocol, but to which the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_10.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The Frauchiger--Renner paradox derives an inconsistency when quantum theory is used to describe the use of itself, by means of a scenario where agents model other agents quantumly and reason about each other's knowledge. We observe that logical contextuality (\`a la Hardy) is the key ingredient of the FR paradox, and we provide a stronger paradox based on the strongly contextual GHZ--Mermin scenario. In contrast to the FR paradox, this GHZ--FR paradox neither requires post-selection nor any reasoning by observers who are modelled quantumly. If one accepts the universality of quantum theory including superobservers, we propose a natural extension of Peres's dictum to resolve these extended Wigner's friend paradoxes.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript refines the Frauchiger-Renner (FR) paradox by substituting its logical-contextuality ingredient with the strong contextuality of the three-qubit GHZ-Mermin scenario. The central claim is that the resulting GHZ-FR paradox produces an inconsistency from the GHZ state plus Mermin observables (product -1 on the state, +1 per context) embedded in an agent/superobserver Wigner-friend setup, without post-selection and without any agent being modelled quantum-mechanically; a natural extension of Peres's dictum is proposed to resolve such extended paradoxes under the assumption of universal quantum theory.

Significance. If the embedding is shown to be rigorous, the result strengthens the FR family by removing post-selection and quantum-agent modelling, thereby isolating the role of strong contextuality plus classical reasoning. It directly leverages the established GHZ-Mermin theorem and the original FR construction without introducing free parameters or self-referential definitions.

major comments (2)
  1. [§3] §3 (GHZ-FR construction): the explicit mapping from the GHZ state and the three pairwise Mermin observables to the agent-based scenario is not supplied in sufficient detail to verify that the logical contradiction arises solely from strong contextuality and classical agent reasoning; without this step-by-step correspondence it remains unclear whether the inconsistency is preserved or requires additional assumptions on knowledge-update rules.
  2. [§2, §4] §2 and §4: the claim that 'no reasoning by observers who are modelled quantumly' is required is load-bearing for the 'stronger' status relative to FR, yet the manuscript does not exhibit the precise classical reasoning steps that replace the quantum modelling used in the original FR argument.
minor comments (2)
  1. Notation for the superobservers and the contexts in which they measure could be aligned more explicitly with the standard GHZ-Mermin labelling to aid readability.
  2. The extension of Peres's dictum in the final section would benefit from a concise formal statement rather than a prose description.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for their detailed and constructive report. We agree that the presentation of the GHZ-FR construction and the explicit classical reasoning steps can be clarified. Below we address each major comment and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [§3] §3 (GHZ-FR construction): the explicit mapping from the GHZ state and the three pairwise Mermin observables to the agent-based scenario is not supplied in sufficient detail to verify that the logical contradiction arises solely from strong contextuality and classical agent reasoning; without this step-by-step correspondence it remains unclear whether the inconsistency is preserved or requires additional assumptions on knowledge-update rules.

    Authors: We accept that the step-by-step correspondence between the GHZ state, the three Mermin contexts (each with product +1) and the agent/superobserver assignments was not presented with sufficient explicitness. In the revised manuscript we will add a dedicated subsection that maps each observable to the corresponding agent's measurement and knowledge statement, showing that the contradiction follows directly from the GHZ eigenvalue equation together with the classical inference that each agent knows the value of their observable once the context is fixed. No additional knowledge-update rules beyond ordinary classical logic are invoked. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [§2, §4] §2 and §4: the claim that 'no reasoning by observers who are modelled quantumly' is required is load-bearing for the 'stronger' status relative to FR, yet the manuscript does not exhibit the precise classical reasoning steps that replace the quantum modelling used in the original FR argument.

    Authors: The manuscript already states that all agents employ only classical reasoning about the pre-assigned GHZ correlations. To make this fully explicit we will insert, in both §2 and §4, the four-line classical deduction that each agent performs: (i) the context fixes the product of three observables to +1, (ii) the agent measures their observable and infers the product of the other two, (iii) this inference is communicated classically to the superobserver, and (iv) the superobserver assembles the three inferences to obtain the contradictory product -1. These steps replace the quantum modelling of agents that appears in the original FR argument. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on independent established results

full rationale

The paper identifies logical contextuality as the key ingredient in the existing Frauchiger-Renner paradox and constructs a stronger version by direct embedding of the classic GHZ-Mermin scenario. No step reduces a claimed prediction or uniqueness result to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or load-bearing self-citation chain within the paper itself. The GHZ-Mermin contextuality and FR paradox are cited as external, independently established inputs whose logical structure is preserved in the agent-based extension. The derivation chain therefore remains self-contained against external benchmarks rather than circular.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

Based on abstract only. The central claim rests on standard quantum axioms plus the assumption that strong contextuality (GHZ-Mermin) transfers to the agent-reasoning setting without modification. No free parameters or invented entities are mentioned.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Quantum theory is universal and can be applied to model agents including superobservers.
    Invoked in the final sentence of the abstract as the condition under which the extended Peres dictum is proposed.
  • domain assumption Logical contextuality is the key ingredient driving the inconsistency in the original FR paradox.
    Stated explicitly as the observation enabling the replacement with GHZ-Mermin.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5654 in / 1397 out tokens · 39654 ms · 2026-05-23T20:33:27.659234+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Are free choices absolute, when internalized in Wigner's friend?

    quant-ph 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Free choices lack absoluteness in an extended Wigner's friend scenario based on the Pusey-Barrett-Rudolph theorem under locality.

  2. An extended Wigner's friend no-go theorem inspired by generalized contextuality

    quant-ph 2025-02 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    The Noncontextual Friendliness no-go theorem proves quantum theory incompatible with Absoluteness of Observed Events and Noncontextual Agency, generalizing the Local Friendliness theorem.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

101 extracted references · 101 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers · 6 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    A. P. Polychronakos, Quantum mechanical rules for observed observers and the consistency of quantum theory (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    Frauchiger and R

    D. Frauchiger and R. Renner,Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself, Nature communications 9, 3711 (2018)

    work page 2018

  3. [3]

    E. P. Wigner,Remarks on the mind-body question, Philosophical reflections and syntheses , 247–260 (1995)

    work page 1995

  4. [4]

    The measurement problem is the measurement problem is the measurement problem

    V. Baumann, A. Hansen, and S. Wolf, The measurement problem is the measurement problem is the measurement problem (2016), arXiv:1611.01111 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    Vilasini and M

    V. Vilasini and M. P. Woods, A general framework for consistent logical reasoning in Wigner’s friend scenarios: subjective perspectives of agents within a single quantum circuit (2022), arXiv:2209.09281 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Kastner, Unitary-only quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself: On the Frauchiger–Renner paradox, Foundations of Physics50, 441–456 (2020)

    R. Kastner, Unitary-only quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself: On the Frauchiger–Renner paradox, Foundations of Physics50, 441–456 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Vilasini, N

    V. Vilasini, N. Nurgalieva, and L. del Rio,Multi-agent paradoxes beyond quantum theory, New Journal of Physics21, 113028 (2019)

    work page 2019

  8. [8]

    Brukner,A no-go theorem for observer-independent facts, Entropy20, 350 (2018)

    Č. Brukner,A no-go theorem for observer-independent facts, Entropy20, 350 (2018)

    work page 2018

  9. [9]

    Hardy,Nonlocality for two particles without inequalities for almost all entangled states, Physical Review Letters71, 1665 (1993)

    L. Hardy,Nonlocality for two particles without inequalities for almost all entangled states, Physical Review Letters71, 1665 (1993)

    work page 1993

  10. [10]

    Aaronson, It’s hard to think when someone Hadamards your brain (2018)

    S. Aaronson, It’s hard to think when someone Hadamards your brain (2018)

    work page 2018

  11. [11]

    A. Drezet, About Wigner Friend’s and Hardy’s paradox in a Bohmian approach: a comment of ‘Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself’ (2018), arXiv:1810.10917 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  12. [12]

    S. B. Montanhano, Contextuality in multi-agent paradoxes (2023), arXiv:2305.07792 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  13. [13]

    Wigner and his many friends: A new no-go result?

    S. Fortin and O. Lombardi, Wigner and his many friends: A new no-go result? (2019), arXiv:1904.07412 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  14. [14]

    N. D. Mermin,Simple unified form for the major no-hidden-variables theorems, Physical Review Letters 65, 3373 (1990)

    work page 1990

  15. [15]

    D. M. Greenberger, M. A. Horne, and A. Zeilinger, inBell’s theorem, quantum theory, and conceptions of the universe, Fundamental Theories of Physics, Vol. 37, edited by M. Kafatos (Kluwer, Dordrecht,

    work page

  16. [16]

    K.-W. Bong, A. Utreras-Alarcón, F. Ghafari, Y.-C. Liang, N. Tischler, E. G. Cavalcanti, G. J. Pryde, and H. M. Wiseman,A strong no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox, Nature Physics16, 1199–1205 (2020)

    work page 2020

  17. [17]

    E. G. Cavalcanti and H. M. Wiseman,Implications of Local Friendliness violation for quantum causality, Entropy23, 925 (2021)

    work page 2021

  18. [18]

    Haddara and E

    M. Haddara and E. G. Cavalcanti,A possibilistic no-go theorem on the Wigner’s friend paradox, New Journal of Physics25, 093028 (2023)

    work page 2023

  19. [19]

    Leegwater,When Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger meet Wigner’s friend, Foundations of Physics 52, 68 (2022)

    G. Leegwater,When Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger meet Wigner’s friend, Foundations of Physics 52, 68 (2022)

    work page 2022

  20. [20]

    Schmid, Y

    D. Schmid, Y. Y¯ ıng, and M. Leifer, A review and analysis of six extended Wigner’s friend arguments (2023), arXiv:2308.16220 [quant-ph] . 32

    work page arXiv 2023

  21. [21]

    Ormrod and J

    N. Ormrod and J. Barrett, A no-go theorem for absolute observed events without inequalities or modal logic (2022), arXiv:2209.03940 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Ormrod, V

    N. Ormrod, V. Vilasini, and J. Barrett, Which theories have a measurement problem? (2023), arXiv:2303.03353 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Inadequacy of Modal Logic in Quantum Settings

    N. Nurgalieva and L. del Rio, Inadequacy of modal logic in quantum settings (2018), arXiv:1804.01106 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  24. [24]

    Żukowski and M

    M. Żukowski and M. Markiewicz,Physics and metaphysics of Wigner’s friends: Even performed premeasurements have no results, Physical Review Letters126, 130402 (2021)

    work page 2021

  25. [25]

    Walleghem, R

    L. Walleghem, R. Wagner, D. Schmid, and Y. Y¯ing, Extended Wigner’s friend paradoxes do not require nonlocal correlations (2023), arXiv:2310.06976 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  26. [26]

    Walleghem, Y

    L. Walleghem, Y. Y¯ing, R. Wagner, and D. Schmid, Connecting extended Wigner’s friend arguments and noncontextuality (2024), to appear

    work page 2024

  27. [27]

    Gao, Quantum theory is incompatible with relativity: A new proof beyond Bell’s theorem and a test of unitary quantum theories (2019)

    S. Gao, Quantum theory is incompatible with relativity: A new proof beyond Bell’s theorem and a test of unitary quantum theories (2019)

    work page 2019

  28. [28]

    P. A. Guérin, V. Baumann, F. Del Santo, and Č. Brukner,A no-go theorem for the persistent reality of Wigner’s friend’s perception, Communications Physics4, 93 (2021)

    work page 2021

  29. [29]

    Decoherence allows quantum theory to describe the use of itself

    A. Relaño, Decoherence allows quantum theory to describe the use of itself (2018), arXiv:1810.07065 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  30. [30]

    Relaño,Decoherence framework for Wigner’s-friend experiments, Physical Review A101, 032107 (2020)

    A. Relaño,Decoherence framework for Wigner’s-friend experiments, Physical Review A101, 032107 (2020)

    work page 2020

  31. [31]

    Gambini, L

    R. Gambini, L. P. García-Pintos, and J. Pullin,Single-world consistent interpretation of quantum mechanics from fundamental time and length uncertainties, Phys. Rev. A100, 012113 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    Lazarovici and M

    D. Lazarovici and M. Hubert,How Quantum Mechanics can consistently describe the use of itself, Scientific Reports9, 470 (2019)

    work page 2019

  33. [33]

    Sudbery,Single-world theory of the extended Wigner’s friend experiment, Foundations of Physics 47, 658–669 (2017)

    A. Sudbery,Single-world theory of the extended Wigner’s friend experiment, Foundations of Physics 47, 658–669 (2017)

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Deutsch,Quantum theory, the Church–Turing principle and the universal quantum computer, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    D. Deutsch,Quantum theory, the Church–Turing principle and the universal quantum computer, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences400, 97–117 (1985)

    work page 1985

  35. [35]

    Nurgalieva and R

    N. Nurgalieva and R. Renner,Testing quantum theory with thought experiments, Contemporary Physics 61, 193–216 (2020)

    work page 2020

  36. [36]

    Brukner,On the quantum measurement problem, Quantum [Un] Speakables II: Half a Century of Bell’s Theorem , 95–117 (2017)

    Č. Brukner,On the quantum measurement problem, Quantum [Un] Speakables II: Half a Century of Bell’s Theorem , 95–117 (2017)

    work page 2017

  37. [37]

    Utreras-Alarcón, E

    A. Utreras-Alarcón, E. G. Cavalcanti, and H. M. Wiseman, Allowing Wigner’s friend to sequentially measure incompatible observables (2023), arXiv:2305.09102 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  38. [38]

    Szangolies, The quantum Rashomon effect: A strengthened Frauchiger-Renner argument (2020), arXiv:2011.12716 [quant-ph]

    J. Szangolies, The quantum Rashomon effect: A strengthened Frauchiger-Renner argument (2020), arXiv:2011.12716 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2020

  39. [39]

    Healey,Quantum theory and the limits of objectivity, Foundations of Physics48, 1568–1589 (2018)

    R. Healey,Quantum theory and the limits of objectivity, Foundations of Physics48, 1568–1589 (2018)

    work page 2018

  40. [40]

    Abramsky and A

    S. Abramsky and A. Brandenburger,The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality, New Journal of Physics13, 113036 (2011). 33

    work page 2011

  41. [41]

    Abramsky, R

    S. Abramsky, R. S. Barbosa, K. Kishida, R. Lal, and S. Mansfield, in24th EACSL Annual Conference on Computer Science Logic (CSL 2015), Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Vol. 41, edited by S. Kreutzer (Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik, Dagstuhl, Germany, 2015) pp. 211–228

    work page 2015

  42. [42]

    R. S. Barbosa,Contextuality in quantum mechanics and beyond, Dphil thesis, University of Oxford (2015)

    work page 2015

  43. [43]

    Abramsky, R

    S. Abramsky, R. S. Barbosa, and S. Mansfield,Contextual fraction as a measure of contextuality, Physical review letters119, 050504 (2017)

    work page 2017

  44. [44]

    N. D. Mermin,Quantum mysteries revisited, American Journal of Physics58, 731–734 (1990)

    work page 1990

  45. [45]

    Abramsky and B

    S. Abramsky and B. Coecke,Categorical quantum mechanics, Handbook of quantum logic and quantum structures2, 261–325 (2009)

    work page 2009

  46. [46]

    Coecke and A

    B. Coecke and A. Kissinger,Picturing Quantum Processes: A First Course in Quantum Theory and Diagrammatic Reasoning(Cambridge University Press, 2017)

    work page 2017

  47. [47]

    Oreshkov, F

    O. Oreshkov, F. Costa, and Č. Brukner,Quantum correlations with no causal order, Nature communications 3, 1092 (2012)

    work page 2012

  48. [48]

    Liang, R

    Y.-C. Liang, R. W. Spekkens, and H. M. Wiseman,Specker’s parable of the overprotective seer: A road to contextuality, nonlocality and complementarity, Physics Reports506, 1–39 (2011)

    work page 2011

  49. [49]

    Sudbery, The hidden assumptions of Frauchiger and Renner (2019), arXiv:1905.13248 [quant-ph]

    A. Sudbery, The hidden assumptions of Frauchiger and Renner (2019), arXiv:1905.13248 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2019

  50. [50]

    Fagin, J

    R. Fagin, J. Y. Halpern, Y. Moses, and M. Vardi,Reasoning about knowledge(MIT press, 2004)

    work page 2004

  51. [51]

    Blackburn, M

    P. Blackburn, M. De Rijke, and Y. Venema,Modal logic: graph. Darst, Vol. 53 (Cambridge University Press, 2001)

    work page 2001

  52. [52]

    Brukner, Qubits are not observers–a no-go theorem (2021), arXiv:2107.03513 [quant-ph]

    Č. Brukner, Qubits are not observers–a no-go theorem (2021), arXiv:2107.03513 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    Allam and A

    J. Allam and A. Matzkin,From observer-dependent facts to frame-dependent measurement records in Wigner friend scenarios, Europhysics Letters143, 60001 (2023)

    work page 2023

  54. [54]

    J. B. DeBrota, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack,Respecting one’s fellow: QBism’s analysis of Wigner’s friend, Foundations of Physics50, 1859–1874 (2020)

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Peres,Unperformed experiments have no results, American Journal of Physics46, 745–747 (1978)

    A. Peres,Unperformed experiments have no results, American Journal of Physics46, 745–747 (1978)

    work page 1978

  56. [56]

    D. V. Tausk, A brief introduction to the foundations of quantum theory and an analysis of the Frauchiger-Renner paradox (2018), arXiv:1812.11140 [quant-ph]

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  57. [57]

    Bub,Understanding the Frauchiger–Renner argument, Foundations of Physics51, 36 (2021)

    J. Bub,Understanding the Frauchiger–Renner argument, Foundations of Physics51, 36 (2021)

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    Muciño and E

    R. Muciño and E. Okon,Wigner’s convoluted friends, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics72, 87–90 (2020)

    work page 2020

  59. [59]

    C. L. Jones and M. P. Müller,Thinking twice inside the box: is Wigner’s friend really quantum?, arXiv preprint 10.48550/arXiv.2402.08727 (2024)

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2402.08727 2024

  60. [60]

    F. J. Boge,Quantum information versus epistemic logic: An analysis of the Frauchiger–Renner theorem, Foundations of Physics49, 1143–1165 (2019)

    work page 2019

  61. [61]

    Fraser, N

    P. Fraser, N. Nurgalieva, and L. Rio,Fitch’s knowability axioms are incompatible with quantum theory, Journal of Philosophical Logic52 (2023)

    work page 2023

  62. [62]

    Corti, V

    A. Corti, V. Fano, and G. Tarozzi,A Logico-Epistemic Investigation of Frauchiger and Renner’s paradox, International Journal of Theoretical Physics62, 54 (2023). 34

    work page 2023

  63. [63]

    Baltag and S

    A. Baltag and S. Smets,Logic meets Wigner’s Friend (and their Friends), International Journal of Theoretical Physics63, 97 (2024)

    work page 2024

  64. [64]

    Araújo, The flaw in Frauchiger and Renner’s argument (2018)

    M. Araújo, The flaw in Frauchiger and Renner’s argument (2018)

    work page 2018

  65. [65]

    Di Biagio and C

    A. Di Biagio and C. Rovelli,Stable facts, relative facts, Foundations of Physics51, 1–13 (2021)

    work page 2021

  66. [66]

    E. G. Cavalcanti, A. Di Biagio, and C. Rovelli, On the consistency of relative facts (2023), arXiv:2305.07343 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2023

  67. [67]

    Losada, R

    M. Losada, R. Laura, and O. Lombardi,Frauchiger-Renner argument and quantum histories, Physical Review A100, 052114 (2019)

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    Schlosshauer,Quantum decoherence, Physics Reports831, 1–57 (2019)

    M. Schlosshauer,Quantum decoherence, Physics Reports831, 1–57 (2019)

    work page 2019

  69. [69]

    Schlosshauer,Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev

    M. Schlosshauer,Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys.76, 1267–1305 (2005)

    work page 2005

  70. [70]

    Schlosshauer, Decoherence: the Quantum-to-Classical Transition, The Frontiers Collection (Springer-Verlag, 2007) 10.1007/978-3-540-35775-9 (2007)

    M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence: the Quantum-to-Classical Transition, The Frontiers Collection (Springer-Verlag, 2007) 10.1007/978-3-540-35775-9 (2007)

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-540-35775-9 2007

  71. [71]

    G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, inQuantum Probability and Applications II: Proceedings of a Workshop held in Heidelberg, West Germany, October 1–5, 1984(Springer, 1985) pp. 223–232

    work page 1984

  72. [72]

    G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber,Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems, Physical review D34, 470–491 (1986)

    work page 1986

  73. [73]

    Penrose,On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction, General relativity and gravitation28, 581–600 (1996)

    R. Penrose,On gravity’s role in quantum state reduction, General relativity and gravitation28, 581–600 (1996)

    work page 1996

  74. [74]

    Diosi,A universal master equation for the gravitational violation of quantum mechanics, Physics letters A120, 377–381 (1987)

    L. Diosi,A universal master equation for the gravitational violation of quantum mechanics, Physics letters A120, 377–381 (1987)

    work page 1987

  75. [75]

    Bassi and G

    A. Bassi and G. Ghirardi,Dynamical reduction models, Physics Reports379, 257–426 (2003)

    work page 2003

  76. [76]

    Forstner, M

    S. Forstner, M. Zych, S. Basiri-Esfahani, K. E. Khosla, and W. P. Bowen,Nanomechanical test of quantum linearity, Optica7, 1427–1434 (2020)

    work page 2020

  77. [77]

    Arnquist, F

    I. Arnquist, F. Avignone III, A. Barabash, C. Barton, K. Bhimani, E. Blalock, B. Bos, M. Busch, M. Buuck, T. Caldwell,et al., Search for spontaneous radiation from wave function collapse in the majorana demonstrator, Physical Review Letters129, 080401 (2022)

    work page 2022

  78. [78]

    Donadi, K

    S. Donadi, K. Piscicchia, R. Del Grande, C. Curceanu, M. Laubenstein, and A. Bassi,Novel CSL bounds from the noise-induced radiation emission from atoms, The European Physical Journal C81, 1–10 (2021)

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    Carlesso, S

    M. Carlesso, S. Donadi, L. Ferialdi, M. Paternostro, H. Ulbricht, and A. Bassi,Present status and future challenges of non-interferometric tests of collapse models, Nature Physics18, 243–250 (2022)

    work page 2022

  80. [80]

    J. M. Renes, Consistency in the description of quantum measurement: Quantum theory can consistently describe the use of itself (2021), arXiv:2107.02193 [quant-ph]

    work page arXiv 2021

Showing first 80 references.