Advertisement

Foundations of Physics

, Volume 48, Issue 11, pp 1568–1589 | Cite as

Quantum Theory and the Limits of Objectivity

  • Richard HealeyEmail author
Article

Abstract

Three recent arguments seek to show that the universal applicability of unitary quantum theory is inconsistent with the assumption that a well-conducted measurement always has a definite physical outcome. In this paper I restate and analyze these arguments. The import of the first two is diminished by their dependence on assumptions about the outcomes of counterfactual measurements. But the third argument establishes its intended conclusion. Even if every well-conducted quantum measurement we ever make will have a definite physical outcome, this argument should make us reconsider the objectivity of that outcome.

Keywords

Quantum theory Objectivity Wigner’s friend Brukner Frauchiger and Renner 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Jeff Bub for a helpful correspondence on Frauchiger and Renner’s argument, to Časlav Brukner for conversations and correspondence over several years, and to a reviewer for good strategic advice. None of them should be taken to endorse the analysis or conclusions of this paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Fuchs, C.: QBism, the perimeter of quantum bayesianism (2010). arXiv:1003.5209
  2. 2.
    Fuchs, C., Mermin, N.D., Schack, R.: An introduction to QBism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics. Am. J. Phys. 82, 749–54 (2014)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brukner, Č.: On the quantum measurement problem. In: Bertlmann, R., Zeilinger, A. (eds.) Quantum Unspeakables II, pp. 95–117. Springer International, Cham (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brukner, Č.: A no-go theorem for observer-independent facts. Entropy 20, 350 (2018)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rovelli, C.: Relational quantum mechanics. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 35, 1637–78 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Popper, K.R.: The Logic of Scientific Discovery. Hutchinson, London (1959)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Deutsch, D.: Quantum theory as a universal physical theory. Int. J. Theor. Phys. 24, 1–41 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wallace, D.: The Emergent Multiverse. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Frauchiger, D., Renner, R.: Single-world interpretations of quantum theory cannot be self-consistent” (2016). https://arxiv.org/abs/1604.07422
  10. 10.
    Bell, J.S.: Speakable and Unspeakable in Quantum Mechanics, Revised edn. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wigner, E.: Remarks on the mind-body question. In: Good, I. (ed.) The Scientist Speculates. Heinemann, London (1961)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Frauchiger, D., Renner, R.: Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself. Nat Commun. 9, 3711 (2018)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Maudlin, T.: Quantum Non-locality and Relativity, 3rd edn. Wiley-Blackwell, Chichester (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Healey, R.A.: Locality, probability and causality. In: Bell, M., Shan, G. (eds.) Quantum Nonlocality and Reality, pp. 172–94. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pusey, M.:“Is QBism 80% complete, or 20%”, talk given at the Information-Theoretic Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics workshop, Western University, Canada. Available at https://grfilms.net/v-matthew-pusey-is-qbism-80-complete-or-20-_9Rs61l8MyY.html) (2016)
  16. 16.
    Fine, A.: Joint distributions, quantum correlations, and commuting observables. J. Math. Phys. 23, 1306–10 (1982)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lee, D., Chang-Young, E.: Quantum entanglement under Lorentz boost. New J. Phys. 6, 67 (2004)ADSCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kochen, S., Specker, E.: The problem of hidden variables in quantum mechanics. J. Math. Mech. 17, 59–87 (1967)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Einstein, A.: Autobiographical notes. In: Schilpp, P. (ed.) Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist. Open Court Press, La Salle (1949)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wigner, E.: The problem of measurement. Am. J. Phys. 31, 6–15 (1963)ADSMathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations