arXiv:1812.00985v2 [quant-ph] 19 Oct 2019 utpebace fwrd r rae hnWigner’s when created interpretation, are many-world worlds the of to branches According sup- multiple to mechan- [3–5]. is sys- quantum of extension ics lab interpretation Deutsch’s many-world the of the intention as port The such [2]. system be tem to macroscopic experiment to thought applicable the extended process. measurement further the quantum nec- Deutsch the a designed is in consciousness component initially that essary Wigner argue to experiment thought theories. quantum var- of difference ious the manifests experiment thought above process physical same lab. the the inside of happened give the descriptions friend know en- different his not and is two Wigner does that Thus, Wigner state outcome. measurement apparatus. superposition the the a the perspective, with At in Wigner’s tangled is evolution. from time system experiment, unitary quantum a the as of lab end the in by Hence friend performed including world. his process of measurement lab, him- the rest entire the describes The Wigner from Wigner isolated lab. observer, is the friend, Another Wigner’s outside placed is state. self, projected definite been From a has apparatus. system into the quantum of the variable She perspective, pointer her a system. of on apparatus reading based outcome the an measurement the using certainty measurement with system selective knows a quantum perform a to lab of a friend) this inside (Wigner’s placed In observer is va- an theories. setup, the interpretation experiment tests thought quantum it many as of discussed lidity widely been has experiment ∗ [email protected] h nepeaino h iuto rae nthe in created situation the of interpretation The thought [1] friend Wigner’s the mechanics, quantum In Keywords: c numbers: PACS to mechanics the subsystems. quantum separated confirm space-like applying version, but when extended measurement it quantum and of o Friend different Wigner’s from EPR, system quantum ing a re of measurement of descriptions quantum Synchronization consistent of observer. formulation an to relational to measurement insteadrelative In quantum information agents. of updated different inconsisten formulation from of The relational use the make reaso inconsistent. the apply should is that agent theorem show an e and no-go that thought detail the in friend to (2018)) Wigner’s leads 9 of 3711, quan version Comm. a extended Nature of the descriptions analyze consistent we have can observers ferent h inrsfin yeo huh xeiet aietth manifest experiments thought of type friend Wigner’s The .INTRODUCTION I. ossetDsrpin fQatmMeasurement Quantum of Descriptions Consistent inrsFin xeiet unu esrmn,Relatio Measurement, Quantum Experiment, Friend Wigner’s 36.a 03.65.-w 03.65.Ta, ulom a ig,C 22,USA 92121, CA Diego, San Qualcomm, Dtd coe 2 2019) 22, October (Dated: ina .Yang M. Jianhao eieti hr)[9 ofrhrmnfsssm fthe of some manifests further to ex- [19] (WFR short) experiment in ex- friend periment Wigner’s an of proposed version Renner the- tended and quantum Frauchiger many Recently, testify ories. to value conceptual provides ways. some Schr¨odigner Equation in the modified require be and the to mechan- However, incomplete quantum is lab [18]. that ics experiment imply the theories the to collapse of state objective end the superposition at a system Thus, assign [17]. cannot when threshold physical Wigner randomly certain A collapse reaches system function. will the wave function the wave in element superposed ontological objective is is state there quantum and the col- that objective suggest hand, theories other actual lapse the on On based function information outcome. of “wave measurement update so-called an The just is system. informa- collapse” quantum observer’s a a the of quantum as encodes tion Bayesian function that wave and tool consider RQM mathematical 16] Both [15, (QBism) lab. mechanics the measurement Wigner in the that of process accounts legitimate absolute different is have no friend it is his system, and there quantum includ- RQM a systems, for In state quantum systems. are macroscopic systems CI ing in all system assumes quantum the and and discards system RQM classical of system. described separation quantum be must another system Relational of to quantum spirit relative a that the observer. asserts extends and the CI [9–14] to (RQM) thus mechanics relative [6–8], quantum apparatus is measuring description the the on inside its depends process of lab measurement the the one the that on into insists description CI collapses quantum occurs. system measurement measured when superposition eigenstate the the wave of CI, Copenhagen no the to state is to According contrast There (CI). in its Interpretation is variable. has This measured world collapse. the Each function of value measurement. own the performs friend sw a e,teWge’ redtogtexperiment thought friend Wigner’s the see, can we As uti eesr eurmn oachieve to requirement necessary a is sult ∗ u esrmn vn.I hspaper, this In event. measurement tum sres huh xeiet,includ- experiments, Thought bservers. ehnc,amaueeti described is measurement a mechanics, yi ihrsett h requirement the to respect with is cy eov h nossetdescriptions inconsistent the resolve prmn Facie n Renner, and (Frauchiger xperiment ocpulcalneo o dif- how on challenge conceptual e fotae nomto.W then We information. outdated of eest frltoa formulation relational of necessity igpoesfo ahaetthat agent each from process ning moiesse ihentangled with system omposite a unu Mechanics Quantum nal 2 conceptual difficulties. In the original Wigner’s friend ex- tum mechanics. The assumption of a Super Observer1 periment, the different accounts between Wigner and his should be abandoned, so as the notion of observer inde- friend are not considered contradictory because they are pendent description of physical reality. It is shown [14] based on different level of knowledge. It is always possi- that the EPR paradox [21] can be resolved by aban- ble for Wigner to perform additional verification with his doning the notion of observer independent description friend and find agreement on the measurement outcome. of physical reality. In addition, different local observers Thus, the two descriptions from Wigner and his friend can achieve consistent descriptions of a quantum system are reconciled. The WFR experiment, however, creates if they are synchronized on the outcomes from any mea- a situation that at the end of some of the experiments surement performed on the system. The Wigner’s friend (i.e., with a non-zero probability), such reconciliation is paradox and its extended version confirm the necessity not possible. This imposes additional conceptual chal- of synchronizing local measurement results. This is par- lenge for any quantum interpretation to address. In par- ticularly true when an experiment involves multiple mea- ticular, Ref. [19] proposes a no-go theorem, which states surement steps. In conclusion, the EPR paradox and the that three natural sounding assumptions cannot be all Wigner’s friend type of paradox serve as examples to con- valid in the same time. The three assumptions are 1.) firm the conceptual value of the relational formulation of universal validity of quantum mechanics (Q), 2.) predic- quantum measurement. tions from different observers are consistent (C), and 3.) a particular measurement only yields one single outcome, i.e., single world instead of many-world (S). II. THE EXTENDED WIGNER’S FRIEND PARADOX This paper gives a detailed analysis of the WFR ex- periment in the Schr¨odinger picture by explicitly writing To make it easy for comparison and analysis, we will down the wave function each agent assigns to the com- adopt the same notations used in Ref. [19]. Fig.1 depicts posite system at different experiment step. The reason a sketch of the WFR thought experiment. The time se- to use the Schr¨odinger picture is that it is more con- quence is labeled by t = n : ij where n is the number venient to analyze how the information encoded in the of round in the experiment, i labels the step within the wave function is utilized in the reasoning process of each round, and j labels the sub-step. There are four agents agent. One important rule in the reasoning process is in the WFR experiment. Agents F and F are inside the that an agent should make use of the available informa- lab L¯ and L, respectively. Agents W and W are out- tion, no more and no less. The information can be that side the lab, and can perform measurement on L¯ and L, is encoded in a known wave function, or can be obtained respectively. System R is a quantum randomness gener- through direct measurement result. However, in Section ator which outputs variable r = tails or r = heads with II we show that not every agent is reasoning by consis- probability 2/3 and 1/3, respectively. System S is a spin tently following such rule. that is set to | ↓i if r = heads and | →i if r = tails. The experimental protocol is described in detailed in Box 1 Nevertheless, there is significant conceptual value of Ref. [19]. Denote D as the detector that agent F uses brought up by the extended Wigner’s friend thought to measure S, and D¯ as the detector that agent F uses experiment as it provides a clear examples that in or- to measure R. Since the state of knowledge of an agent der to reconcile the different account between different is always synchronized with the corresponding detector agent, additional verification or communication is re- state, there is no need to distinguish them. We can sim- quired. There is always possible to come up with an- ply define an apparatus composite system A = D ⊗ F other more complicate thought experiment to produce and assign a quantum state to A. Similarly, A¯ = D¯ ⊗ F . potential inconsistency. To completely resolve this issue, an operational principle for the reconciliation process is proposed in Section III. The principle is a necessary com- A. Schr¨odinger Picture ponent to construct a description of a quantum system with complete available information. In this subsection the WFR experiment is analyzed in Schr¨odinger picture because it is more convenient to The Wigner’s friend experiment and the extended ver- analyze how information is exchanged among the sub- sion are yet another set of examples that manifest the systems during the experiment. We first explicitly write conceptual values of the relational formulation of quan- down wave function for the composite system of the four tum measurement [14], where quantum measurement is sub-systems R, S, A, A¯ in each step. Without loss of rig- reformulated based on basic RQM principles [9, 12] and orousness, some of the wave functions in this section are one of RQM implementations [13]. Specifically, it is as- not normalized. serted [14] that for a given quantum system, description of its time evolution can be implicitly relative without calling out the observer, while description of a quantum operation must explicitly call out the observer. Infor- 1 Super Observer refers to an observer who knows measurement mation exchange is relative to a local observer in quan- results instantaneously from local observer from any location 3

FIG. 1. Sketch of the extended Wigner’s Friend thought experiment. More detailed description of the experiment protocol can be found in Figure 2 and Box 1 of Ref. [19].

Before t = n : 00, the wave function is initialized as Agent F then sends S to F in lab L, and F performs measurement on S. During the measurement process, init 1 2 the composite system first goes through a unitary time Ψall = ( |headiR + |tailiR)|initiA,S,A¯ (1) r3 r3 evolution. At t = 1 : 0, its wave function becomes where |initi is an initial state for subsystems A,¯ S, A. At 10 1 step n : 00, after time evolution, the wave function for Ψ = (| ↑i |upi + | ↓i |downi )|taili |t¯i ¯. (5) F F¯ r S A S A R A the composite system becomes 2 The subscript F F indicates that both agents F and F 00 init→00 init 1 Ψ = U Ψ = ( |headi |h¯i ¯| ↓i share the same knowledge of this state information. After all R→LS¯ all r 3 R A S (2) F completes the measurement and obtains the result z = 2 1/2, the wave function becomes + |tailiR|t¯iA¯| →iS)|initiA r3 11 10 ΨF = | ↑iSh↑ |ΨF F¯ i The subscript all indicates all the four agents share the (6) common knowledge of the initial state of the composite 1 = | ↑iS|upiA|tailiR|t¯iA¯. system. Between t = n : 00 to t = n : 01, agent F per- r2 forms a projection measurement to R and obtains result The subscript F indicates only agent F knows this state |tailiR. The resulting wave function (unnormalized) at information. The probability of this measurement out- t = n : 01 is come is 01 00 ΨF¯ = |tailiRhtail|Ψalli 10 1 p(F )= ||h↑ |ΨF F¯ i|| = . (7) 2 (3) 2 = |taili |t¯i ¯| →i |initi . r3 R A S A Now we consider the measurement outside the labs. When agent W performs the measurement, according to The probability of obtaining this results is given by Ref. [19], the Heisenberg projector used is 2 ¯ 00 n:00 init→00 † † p(F )= ||htail|Ψ i|| = . (4) π = [(U ) |oki ¯ | ↓i ][·] , (8) all 3 (w,z)=(ok,−1/2) R→LS¯ L S 4 where [·]† denotes the adjoint of the operator defined in Therefore, the overall probability of the measurement preceding factor, and represented by Eq.(13) is

1 1 |oki ¯ = (|headi |h¯i ¯ − |taili |t¯i ¯). (9) p{(w, w) = (ok, ok)} = p(W )p(W )= . (19) L r2 R A R A 12 In Schr¨odinger picture, this operator is equivalent to per- 00 form two projection operations on the wave function Ψall. B. Reasoning of Each Agent First projector is |okiL¯ hok|, and the resulting wave func- tion is With the wave functions for each step explicitly writ- 21 00 ΨW = |okiL¯ hok|Ψalli ten down, we can examine how the reasoning of each (10) agent works and how the reasoning leads to the no-go = |oki ¯ | ↑i |initi . L S A theorem in Ref. [19]. Each agent can reason based on The probability for this measurement result is available knowledge on the wave function of the compos- ite system, the predefined experiment protocol, and own 1 p(W )= ||hok|Ψ00 i|| = . (11) measurement results. all 6 10 Agent F is reasoning based on her knowledge of ΨF F¯ The second projector is | ↓i h↓ | on Ψ21 . Clearly the after she completes the measurement on R and obtained S W resulting wave function vanishes, |tailiR. This wave function can be written as

22 21 10 Ψ = |faili |taili |t¯i ¯ (20) ΨW = | ↓iSh↓ |ΨW i =0. (12) F F¯ L R A

This enables agent W to confirm that S must be in spin 1 where |failiL = 2 (| ↑iS|upiA + | ↓iS|downiA), which up state. q Next we calculate the outcome of the measurement is orthogonal to |okiL. Hence agent F predicts W will performed by agent W . According to Ref. [19], the observe (w = fail) at time t = n : 31. Agent F is reason- Heisenberg projector is ing based on her measurement result on S and knowledge of Ψ11. Since S is in the | ↑i state, agent F infers that F n:00 init→00 † 10→20 † † F ¯ π(w,w)=(ok,ok) = [(UR→LS¯ ) (US→L ) |okiL|okiL][·] obtains (R = tail) according to the experiment protocol. (13) Thus, F is certain that F predicts that W will observe where (w = fail) at time t = n : 31. Applying assumption (C), agent F is also certain that W will observe (w = fail) 1 |oki = (| ↓i |downi −| ↑i |upi ). (14) at time t = n : 31. L r S A S A 00 2 Agent W is reasoning based on wave function Ψall and his measurement result on the lab L¯. Since the mea- Since the unitary operator U 10→20 and projector S→L surement result is (w = ok) and the resulting Ψ20 is |oki ¯ hok| commute, the overall projector in Eq.(13) can W L orthogonal to | ↓i , he infers that S is in the | ↑i state. be rearranged to S This further implies F predicts with certainty that W n:00 init→00 † 10→20 † † ¯ will observe (w = fail) at time t = n : 31. Again, by π(w,w)=(ok,ok) = [(UR→LS¯ ) |okiL(US→L ) |okiL][·] . (15) virtue of assumption (C), W is certain that W will ob- Thus, in Schr¨odinger picture, this operation is equiva- serve (w = fail) at time t = n : 31. Since W announces lent to apply operator [(U 10→20)†|oki ][·]† on the wave the measurement result (w = ok) to W , the same reason- S→L L ing for W is applicable to W . Therefore, at the end of the function Ψ21 . Note that agent W announces the mea- W reasoning, W is certain that he will observe (w = fail) surement results to agent W . Thus, both agents share at time t = n : 31. the same knowledge of the wave function Ψ21 . The uni- W 10→20 But according to Eq.(19), the probability that W will tary operator US→L evolves the wave function to observe (w = ok) and W will observe (w = ok) at time 21 30 t = n : 31 is 1/12. This contradicts the end result of the Ψ → Ψ = |oki ¯ | ↑i |upi . (16) W W L S A reasoning described earlier. The no-go theorem is proved Then operator |okiLhok| projects this wave function to based on this contradiction.

31 30 ΨW = |okiLhok|ΨW i 1 (17) C. Inconsistency in the Reasoning = |oki |oki ¯ . r2 L L Let’s take a deeper examination of the assumptions The probability for this measurement result is in the reasoning process, particularly how the available 1 information is used. There are two naturally sounding p(W )= ||hok|Ψ30 i|| = . (18) W 2 rules here: 5

11 1. An agent should only make use of information avail- available updated information encoded in ΨF after she able at hand. For instance, an agent should not use performs the measurement on S. But if F is reasoning 11 n:14 information from the measurement results of other based on ΨF , statement F in Table 1 is not valid, and agents unless there is explicit communication be- the proof of the no-go theorem becomes questionable. tween the two agents. Agent W is reasoning based on information encoded in 00 ¯ wave function Ψall. If we consider the two labs L and L as 2. An agent should make use of all legitimate infor- a whole, the action that agent F sends the physical copy mation available at hand. For instance, an agent of spin S to F is an internal interaction between the two should make use of latest information once her own labs. What happens inside the labs L and L¯ are unknown measurement result is available, instead of still us- to W . The measurement process carried by agent F and ing updated information. F¯ are described by agent W as time evolution such that system R and A¯ are entangled due to the measurement We will examine whether each agent consistently follows ¯ these rules in their reasoning process. by F , and subsystem S and A due to the measurement First, agent F is reasoning based on her knowledge by F . Hence, at time t = n : 20, from W point of view, 10 the wave function should be of wave function ΨF F¯ . She draws the conclusion that W 20 10→20 init→10 init will observe (w = fail) at time t = n : 30 by assuming if a Ψ = U U ¯ Ψ 10 W S→L R→LS all projection measurement |okiLhok| is performed on ΨF F¯ . 10 1 The wave function ΨF F¯ is changed at t = n : 21 after = {(|headi |h¯i ¯ + |taili |t¯i ¯) (22) r R A R A agent F performs the projection measurement | ↑iSh↑ |. 3 ¯ However, agent F is an observer outside lab L, she does ⊗| ↓iS|downiA + |tailiR|tiA¯| ↑iS|upiA}. not know the measurement outcome performed by F even though from the experiment protocol she knows that F Agent W performs measurement at time t = n : 20 with projector |okihok| on wave function Ψ20 , resulting will perform a measurement before t = n : 30. In other W word, the information available to F is not available to F . in wave function

Thus, it is legitimate for F to assume that information 21 20 10 2 Ψ = |okihok|Ψ i = |oki| ↑iS|upiA. (23) encoded in ΨF F¯ stays the same at time t = n : 30. W W This assumption leads to the conclusion that statement n:02 This leads to the same conclusion as Eq.(12). Since W F in Table 1 is true not only at t = n : 10, but also does not know the measurement results from F¯ and F , at t = n : 31. We conclude that the reasoning of agent F the information encoded in Ψ21 is incomplete but legiti- complies with the two rules mentioned earlier. W mate according to the two reasoning rules. Similar state- Now consider the reasoning from agent F . After agent ment can be applied to the reasoning of agent W . F obtains the measurement result that S is in the | ↑i In summary, the reasoning processes from agent F, W , state at t = n : 11, agent F infers that F¯ obtains and W strictly follow the two rules mentioned earlier. (r = tail) based on her knowledge of Ψ00 . Thus, ac- all However, the reasoning of agent F violates Rule 2. On cording to the reasoning in Table 1, agent F concludes one hand, F knows the measurement results on the spin that W will observe (w = fail) at time t = n : 31. Note system S. Thus, she knows the complete information on such conclusion depends on the reasoning of agent F , the system S and updated wave function available to her who in turn depends on the information encoded in wave 11 10 is ΨF . On the other hand, the reasoning of F presented function ΨF¯ F . However, at t = n : 11, F knows precisely 11 in Ref. [19] still relies on earlier information encoded in that the updated wave function is given by ΨF . If the 10 11 wave function ΨF¯ F . This inconsistency puts the proof of operator |okiLhok| is applied on ΨF , agent F can con- the no-go theorem in Ref. [19] in question. clude that W will observe (w = ok) at time t = n : 31 with probability of 1/2, and the resulting wave function is III. RQM RESOLUTION

12 11 1 Ψ = |oki hok|Ψ i = |oki |taili |t¯i ¯. (21) A. Synchronization of Measurement Result F L F r2 L R A This is inconsistent with her own previous reasoning out- Given the outcome of a measurement performed by a come. The reasoning of agent F presented in Ref. [19] local observer OI on a quantum system S is not nec- does not follow Rule 2. She is implicitly based on the essarily available to another observer OE , observer OE 10 may assign S a wave function that does not encode the information encoded in wave function ΨF¯ F instead of complete information on S. Consequently OI and OE can have different descriptions of S. In the context of re- lational quantum mechanics [9–14], it is legitimate that 2 There is time evolution from t = n : 10 to t = n : 30. How- different observers give different descriptions of a same ever, time evolution does not change the correlation information quantum system because their level of knowledge on the encoded in the wave function. See Ref. [14]. system could be different. We will briefly describe RQM 6

TABLE I. The observations and reasoning of agents F and F . (This is part of Table 3 of Ref. [19] which tabulates the reasoning of all agents.) Agent Observation Statement inferred via (Q) Further implied statement Statement inferred via (C) n:02 Statement F : “I am certain r = tail at F that W will observe w = fail at . time n : 01 time n : 31” n:12 n:13 n:14 1 Statement F : “I am certain Statement F : “I am certain Statement F : “I am certain z = + at F 2 that F knows that r = tail at that F is certain that W will ob- that W will observe w = tail at time n : 11 time n : 01”. serve w = tail at time n : 31 time n : 31 and its implication on quantum measurement in order to occurrence. Instead, suppose an observer knows provide sufficient context for later discussion. the initial state of a system S at time t0, denoted In RQM, a quantum system is described relative to as ΨS(t0), and the observer wants to give a com- another reference system [9]. The relational properties plete description of S at time t1, denoted as ΨS(t1). between two systems are more basic than the indepen- The principle requires that the observer must know dent properties of a system. We recently proposed an the outcome of any measurement on S occurred be- implementation of RQM such that quantum mechanics tween t0 and t1. can be reformulated with relational properties as start- ing point [13]. Ref. [14] applies such implementation to 2. A quantum system can be a composite system that quantum measurement and further clarifies that while consists multiple subsystems. A measurement may time evolution of a given quantum system can be de- be only applied to one of the subsystems. However, scribed without explicitly calling out the observing sys- if the subsystems are entangled, measurement of tem, a quantum measurement must be described explic- any subsystem is considered as measurement of the itly relatively to the observing system. Quantum mea- entire system. For example, if a composite system surement is essentially a process to extract information has two entangled subsystems A and B that are from a quantum system using another measuring sys- remotely separated. Supposed observer OI near A tem3. Such process should be described relative to the performed measurement on A. The result must be local observer. An observer who does not access to the communicated to another observer OE near B so measurement results will not have the complete informa- that both observers have consistent descriptions of tion and can only describe the system up to the level of the composite system. previous knowledge that the observer has. To ensure the 3. The principle is essentially an operational one. The descriptions of different observers are consistent, Ref. [14] synchronization mechanism between observers can proposes that different observers should synchronize in- be achieved through direct additional measurement formation regarding the measurement results. This can on the system, as described in Ref. [9], or through be summarized as the following principle. some forms of information exchange between two A complete description of a quantum system observers. Such information exchange is achieved relative to an observer is achieved by taking through physical interaction. The details of such into account of any quantum operation oc- process are not the main focus here but we assume curred to the system. To ensure consistent it follows quantum mechanics principles. descriptions of a quantum system, measure- 4. When an observer receives the measurement out- ment outcome obtained by a local observer come, he should update the wave function accord- must be communicated to other observers. ing to the measurement theory [14, 22, 26]. Sup- This principle appears quite intuitive. However, there pose the initial state of a system S is Ψ0, the ˆ are several subtleties that need further clarifications. measurement is described by an operator Mm, and Mˆ m is invariant when switching observers, then the 1. A quantum system may experience a long history wave function is updated to be of quantum measurements by different apparatuses over time. The principle does not say an observer Mˆ m|Ψ0i |Ψmi = (24) needs to know the measurement outcome of every † hΨ0|Mˆ mMˆ m|Ψ0i q Equivalently, this principle can be stated in the Heisen- 3 Strictly speaking, here the meaning of information refers to the berg representation as following. Suppose the state of a correlation between the measured system and the measuring sys- quantum system S is |ΨSi, a complete Heisenberg opera- tem. tion π(t0 → t1) to describe the quantum events happened 7 to S between t0 and t1 must capture all intermediate op- surement outcome of w = ok is erations that extract information from the system during 31 22 this period. Note that an operation may be performed Ψ = |okiLhok|Ψ i by a different observer. Missing an intermediate opera- 1 (26) = |oki |oki ¯ , tion in the Heisenberg operator will result in incomplete r2 L L description of S. The synchronization principle is not stated in the orig- with probability of 1/2. The overall probability to obtain inal RQM [9]. However, in Section IV C, we will provide the measurement outcome of (w, w) = (ok, ok) from the 00 analysis that it is not conflicting with the basic RQM initial wave function Ψall is the product of the probabil- principles. ities for the four measurement outcomes, 2 1 1 1 1 p = × × × = . (27) 3 2 2 2 12 B. The Resolution There is no contradiction or ambiguity in this reasoning process. With the synchronization principle, we can proceed the The resolution can be explained in the Heisenberg rep- reasoning in the extended Wigner’s friend experiment to resentation as well. From agent F point of view, the com- see if it leads to a contradiction. plete Heisenberg projector used for reasoning to reach the To implement the synchronization principle, we need statement of (w = ok) is to modify the experiment protocol. For each measure- ment performed by an agent at t = n : k0 and completed n:00 init→00 † 10→20 † † π = [(U ¯ ) |tailiR(US→L ) |okiL][·] . (28) at t = n : k1, we require the agent to communicate the (w=ok) R→LS measurement result to other agents. Suppose the com- Similarly, from agent F point of view, the complete munication is completed at t = n : k2 and all agents Heisenberg projector used for reasoning to reach the update their wave function of composite system accord- statement of (w = ok) should be ingly. They should assign a same wave function to the n:00 init→00 † 10→20 † † composite system. In other words, at t = n : k2, there is π(w=ok) = [(UR→LS¯ ) |tailiR(US→L ) | ↑iS|okiL][·] . only one wave function that is shared among all agents. (29) 00 At t = n : 00, the wave function is given by Ψall in If agent F applies the operator in Eq.(29) to the initial Eq.(2). At t = n : 01, F completes her measurement and state, she will obtain a statement that agent W will ob- obtains outcome of R = tail with probability of 2/3. F¯ serve (w = ok) with non-zero probability. Thus, agent F sends the S to F physically and informs all other agent cannot reach a conclusion that W will observe (w = fail) the measurement outcome. At t = n : 02 all agents with certainty. Ref. [19] just use | ↑iSh↑ | to describe update the wave functions to Ψ02 =Ψ01 given in Eq.(3). agent F ’s reasoning process, but this operator is incom- The wave function goes through time evolution to Ψ10 plete. given in Eq.(5). We omit the subscript for Ψ since it is expected to be the same to all agents. At t = n : 11, agent F completes her measurement and C. Entanglement obtains outcome of S =1/2 with probability of 1/2, the resulting wave function is Ψ11 given by Eq.(6). Agent The synchronization principle can be further under- F informs the outcome to other agents, and all agents stood with the concept of quantum entanglement. Entan- update the wave functions at t = n :12 to Ψ12 =Ψ11. glement measures the quantum correlation among differ- At t = n : 20, agent W performs measurement and ent system [23]. When the subsystems of the composite describes the process based on his knowledge of wave system are entangled, each subsystem encodes informa- function Ψ12. The resulting wave function with the mea- tion about other subsystems. Measurement on any of surement outcome of w = ok is these subsystems extracts information of other subsys- tems. Thus, the measurement outcome of one subsystem 22 12 Ψ = |okiL¯ hok|Ψ i should be communicated to observers who are local to (25) other subsystems in order for them to have a complete 1 description on their local subsystems. = | ↑iS|upiA|okiL¯ , r2 In the WFR experiment, the subsystems include ¯ 00 R, A, S and A. The initial wave function Ψall in Eq.(2) with probability of 1/2. W then communicates the result shows that subsystems R, A¯, and S are entangled. The to agent W and agent W update the wave function to Ψ22 fact that agent W is able to deduce that S is in the | ↑i at time t = n : 22. state after he obtains measurement outcome of w = ok, is 00 At t = n : 30, agent W performs measurement and due to the entanglement information encoded in Ψall. As describes the process based on his knowledge of wave a consequence, the measurement outcome on subsystem function Ψ22. The resulting wave function with the mea- R should be communicated to agent F who is interested 8 in the quantum state of S, and to agent W who is inter- problem is then manifested. The relational quantum me- ested in the quantum state of lab L that consists of S and chanics abandons the assumption of super observer, and A. Certainly the result should be also communicated to replaces it with the two implications. agent W who is interested in the quantum state of lab L¯ ¯ Applying the first implication, we are able to resolve that consists of both R and A. the EPR paradox [10, 14]. In that resolution, a quantum Similarly, the wave function Ψ10 at time t = n : 10 F¯ F measurement should be explicitly described as observer shows that S and A are entangled. Measurement out- dependent. The idea of observer-independent quantum come obtained by agent F should be communicated to state is abandoned since it depends on the assumption of agent W . On the other hand, subsystems S and A are Super Observer. By recognizing that the element of phys- unentangled (i.e., in a product state) with subsystems R ical reality obtained from local measurement is only valid and A¯, as shown in Ψ10, the measurement performed by ¯ relatively to the local observer, the completeness of quan- F will not give additional information of R and A. Since tum mechanics and locality can coexist [14]. Latest ex- agent W is interested in measuring L¯ which consists both ¯ periment appears to confirm that observer-independent R and A, it is not absolutely necessary for agent W to description of a quantum system must be rejected [20]. obtain the measurement outcome from agent F . He will predict the same measurement result of lab L¯ with or Applying the synchronization principle, we are able to without the information. This can be seen by applying resolve the Wigner’s friend paradox and the extended 10 11 version, as shown in section II. These thought experi- projector |okiL¯ hok| on either wave function Ψ or Ψ . The reason we demand agent F to communicate the re- ments provide clear example for the need of information sult to agent W is that the final goal of the experiment synchronization in order to achieve a consistent descrip- is to obtain measurement outcome of both (w = ok) and tion of a quantum system by different observers. Ref [24] (w = ok). Such measurement goal needs complete de- shows similar idea that the assumption of observer inde- scription of all the four subsystems. pendent fact cannot resolve the Wigner’s friend type of paradox. The synchronization principle is conceptually significant since it gives the meaning of objectivity of a IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION quantum state. The relational nature of a quantum state does not imply a quantum state is subjective. Objectiv- A. Operational and Conceptual Implications ity can be defined as the ability of different observers coming to a consensus independently [25]. The relational formulation of quantum measurement Additional conceptual implication of these results is results in two implications of the quantum measurement. that in quantum mechanics, information is relative. The notion of information here refers to the correlation be- 1. Measured reality is relative. Information obtained tween the observed system and another system, and is through quantum measurement is local. Measure- measured by the entropy of reduced density matrix of the ment must be described explicitly relative to the observed system. Changes of the entropy means changes local observer. of information. A quantum process to extract informa- tion from a system must be described explicitly relative 2. Synchronization of local reality. This is essentially to an observer [14]. There is no absolute information to the synchronization principle discussed in Section all observers in quantum mechanics, just as there is no III A. absolute spacetime in Relativity. In traditional quantum mechanics, these two implications of quantum measurement are not applicable due to the assumption of Super Observer. Quantum mechanics was initially developed as a physical theory to explain results B. Limitation of observation of microscopic systems, for instance, spec- trum of light emitted from hydrogen atoms. In such con- dition, the observed system as a whole is much smaller There are limitations to implement the synchroniza- than the apparatus. An observer can practically read tion principle in certain conditions. An observer may the results from different subsystems at the same time. miss the information of result of a measurement per- The assumption of Super Observer becomes operational formed by another observer. Suppose a quantum sys- even though it is conceptually incorrect. However, when tem S is described initially by wave function ΨS(t0). An one wishes to construct a quantum theory for compos- observer OI performs a measurement of variable q on S ite system with entangled subsystems that are spatially and obtain a result q = qm at time t1. Relative to OI , separated by distance that is larger than the typical mea- the wave function is updated to ΨS(t1). However, an- suring apparatus by orders of magnitude, the assumption other observer OE may not be aware of this result at time of Super Observer becomes non-operational since practi- t2 >t1 due to several potential reasons. For instance, OI cally a measuring apparatus is a localized entity. Thus, does not initiate the communication of measurement re- measurement is a local event, and the synchronization sult, or it takes a finite period of time for the information 9

4 to reach observer OE, or there is error in the communi- The synchronization process can be examined from cation process. In any case, OE will still describe S as three aspects: 1.)The observer who sends or receives time evolution of wave function US(t2 − t0)ΨS(t0) where measurement result; 2.)Communication of the informa- US is the time evolution operator of S. tion; 3.)The consequence of receiving the measurement How to overcome these limitations in the communica- result. For the first aspect, let’s compare the definitions tion process is an interesting problem when constructing of observer in oRQM and iRQM. As mentioned in the a quantum description of a composite system with en- introduction, iRQM adopts the idea from oRQM that all tangled subsystems. A typical procedure to construct systems are quantum systems. The measured system S a quantum description is to define the boundary of the and the measuring apparatus A are both quantum sys- composite system such that it can be approximated as tems. The slightly difference is that in iRQM, we distin- an isolated system. Then, given an initial quantum state guish the measuring apparatus A and the observer O as and the Hamilton operator of the system, its time evo- two different physical entities, and they must be locally lution is described as a unitary process. If, however, an collocated. In oRQM, they are combined as a single ob- event occurs such that one of the subsystem starts to server. This can be seen in section II.D of Ref [9], where interact with another system outside the composite sys- the observer O is described as both an apparatus that tem and induces information exchange, a remote observer interacts with S and also being able to “know” the mea- who does not know the event will describe the composite surement outcome. This implies the observer as defined system with incomplete information, and will have incon- in oRQM contains something that can read, store, and sistent description from the oberver who knows the event. compare the measurement results. Therefore an observer How does a local observer keep track such interaction his- in oRQM is equivalent to an A + O composite system in tory of the remote subsystems? This is a challenge that iRQM. Both definitions agree that they should be de- deserves further research. scribed quantum mechanically. For instance, they must Note that the synchronization principle is an opera- follow the quantum mechanics rules of applying quantum tional one, not a conceptual one. If the synchroniza- operator to obtain measurement outcome, as described in tion among different observers does not occur, each ob- Eq.(3) of Ref. [9]. The key here is that there is no need server may have different descriptions of a quantum sys- to assume consciousness in the observer that influences tem. This is still conceptually legitimate in the context the way quantum mechanics is interpreted. There is also of RQM. However, if we wish to incorporate the Rela- no need to assume that the two observers are classical tivity Theory, failure of synchronization may become a systems. The only requirement is that both entities can conceptual issue, because having equivalent description communicate information through physical interaction. of a physical law from different observers is a basic re- On the second aspect, iRQM is consistent with oRQM quirement in the Relativity Theory. How quantum mea- on the idea that communication is achieved through surement is described in the context of Relativity The- physical interaction, and such physical interaction follows ory? This is an interesting question to investigate given quantum mechanics principles, i.e., interaction outcome that a quantum measurement must be described as ob- can be probabilistic rather than deterministic. Exactly server dependent. We speculate that the need for infor- how the two observers synchronize information is not the mation synchronization in a quantum measurement is a main focus here. However, it is achieved through physical necessary element when one wishes to combine quantum interaction in two possible ways. 1.) Another observer mechanics with the Relativity Theory. O′ performs direct measurement on the O + A composite system according to the operator Mˆ defined in Eq.(3) of Ref [9]. 2.) Observer O announces the result and ob- C. Compatibility to the Original RQM server O′ receives such announcement. This method was not discussed in oRQM but is an important step in the As mentioned earlier, the synchronization principle is WFR experiment [19]. How quantum mechanics is used not presented in the original RQM [9]. Instead, it is to achieve the action of “announcing” and “receiving” a proposed in an alternative implementation [13, 14] of the piece of information is not described. But there is no rea- RQM principles. One may wonder if such principle is con- son to assume quantum mechanics cannot describe such sistent with the original RQM. For convenience, we call communication process. For instance, the information the original RQM as oRQM, while the alternative imple- can be encoded into certain property of a photon, and mentation in Ref. [13, 14] as iRQM. The following analy- the photon is emitted from observer O and received by ′ sis shows that the synchronization principle proposed in observer O . iRQM is consistent with the ideas in oRQM. On the third aspect, upon receiving a piece of infor- mation about a measurement result, an observer must follow a quantum mechanics rule, that is, must update the quantum state according to Eq.(24). It is crucial 4 Suppose it takes a period of time ∆t for the information to travel to note that updating the wave function upon receiv- from OI to OE, and ∆t > (t2 − t1), then at time t2, OE is still ing additional information rather than performing direct not aware of the measurement result. measurement is possible here since the wave function, or 10 a quantum state, is just a mathematical tool to book- consistent description of the same quantum system. The keep information resulting from interaction with the ap- relational formulation of quantum measurement [14] pro- paratus. There is no ontological meaning of the wave vides two principles. First, quantum measurement needs function. This is another key concept in oRQM [12]. to be described relative to the observer; Second, to en- Once again, there is no need to assume that O is a hu- sure consistent descriptions of a quantum system, mea- man being with any sort of consciousness, or assume it surement outcome obtained by a local observer must be is a classical system. It is just a physical system that communicated to other observers. We show that these is programmed to follow the quantum measurement rule two principles can resolve the paradoxes presented in sev- specified in Eq.(24). eral thought experiments, including the EPR experiment, In summary, although the synchronization principle is the Wigner’s friend thought experiment, and its extended not presented in oRQM, it is not conflicting with oRQM version. either. It is a legitimate extension in the context of RQM. The synchronization principle imposes a restriction to construct a quantum description of a composite system with entangled subsystems. An observer local to a sub- D. Conclusions system needs to keep track the interaction history of other remote subsystems in order to have accurate de- The extended Wigner’s friend thought experiment [19] scription of the composite system or the subsystem local is analyzed in detail in the Schr¨odinger picture here. The to the observer. This can be a challenge due to the oper- analysis in the Schr¨odinger picture helps us to identify ational limitations in the communication process. Never- the inconsistency in the reasoning process that leads to theless, it is an important problem to consider when we the no-go theorem in Ref. [19]. In the reasoning, an agent wish to incorporate the ideas from the Relativity Theory. should make use of the available information, no more We speculate that the synchronization of measurement and no less. The information can be that is encoded in a results from different observers is a necessary component known wave function, or can be obtained through direct when combining quantum mechanics with the Relativity measurement result. However, we show the reasoning Theory. process in proving the no-go theorem is inconsistent with ACKNOWLEDGMENTS respect to this requirement. However, there is significant conceptual value brought The author sincerely thanks the anonymous review- up by the extended Wigner’s friend thought experiment ers of this paper for their careful reviews. The valuable as it provides a clear example that information synchro- comments provided help to improve the clarity of the nization is needed if different observers want to have a discussions.

[1] Wigner, E.H.: Remarks on the mind-body question, in [11] Transsinelli, M.: Relational Quantum Mechanics and Symmetries and Reflections, pp 171-184 (Indiana Univer- Probability, Found. Phys., 48, 1092-1111 (2018) sity, 1967) [12] Rovelli, C.: “Space is blue and birds fly through it”, Phil. [2] Deutsch, D.: Quantum theory as a universal physical Trans. R. Soc. A 376, arXiv:2017.0312 (2018) theory. Int. J. Theo. Phys. 24, 1-41 (1985) [13] Yang, J. M.: A Relational Formulation of Quantum Me- [3] Everett, H.:“Relative State” Formulation of Quantum chanics, Sci. Rep. 8:13305 (2018), arXiv:1706.01317 Mechanics, Rev of Mod Phys 29, 454 (1957) [14] Yang, J. M.: Relational Formulation of Quantum Mea- [4] Wheeler, J. A.: Assessment of Everett’s “Relative State” surement, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 58 (3), 757-785 (2019), Formulation of Quantum Theory, Rev of Mod Phys 29, arXiv:1803.04843 463 (1957) [15] Fuchs, C. A.: Quantum Mechanics as Quantum Informa- [5] DeWitt, B. S.: Quantum mechanics and reality, Physics tion (and only a little more). arXiv:quant-ph/0205039, Today 23, 30 (1970) (2002) [6] Bohr, N.: Quantum Mechanics and Physical Reality, Na- [16] Fuchs, C. A., and Schark, R.: Quantum-Bayesian Co- ture 136, 65 (1935) herence: The No-Nonsense Version, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, [7] Bohr, N.: Can Quantum Mechanical Description of Phys- 1693-1715 (2013) ical Reality Be Considered Completed? Phys. Rev., 48, [17] R. Penrose, On Gravity’s Role in Quantum State Reduc- 696-702 (1935) tion, General Rel. and Gravit., 28 (5): 581600 (1996) [8] Jammer, M.: The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: [18] E. Wigner, The Scientist Speculates, edited by I. Good, The Interpretations of Quantum Mechanics in Historical pp. 284302 (1961) Perspective, Chapter 6. New York: Wiley-Interscience, [19] D. Frauchiger, R. Renner, Quantum Theory Cannot Con- (1974) sistently Describe The Use of Itself, Nature Comm. 3711, [9] Rovelli, C.: Relational Quantum Mechanics, Int. J. 9 (2018) Theor. Phys., 35, 1637-1678 (1996) [20] M. Proietti, et al., Experimental rejection of observer- [10] Smerlak M., and Rovelli, C.: Relational EPR, Found. independence in the quantum world, arXiv:1902.05080 Phys., 37, 427-445 (2007) (2019). 11

[21] Einstein, A., Podolsky, B., and Rosen, N.: Can 81, 865-942 (2009) Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be [24] Brukner, C.: A no-go theorem for observer-independent Considered Complete? Phys. Rev. 47, 777-780 (1935) facts, Entropy 20, 350, (2018) [22] Von Neumann, J.: Mathematical Foundations of Quan- [25] Zurek, W. H.: Decoherence, Einselection, and the Quan- tum Mechanics, Chap. VI. Princeton University Press, tum Origins of the Classical, Rev. of Mod. Phys. 75, 715 Princeton Translated by Robert T. Beyer (1932/1955) (2003) [23] R. Horodecki, P. Horodecki, M. Horodecki, and K. [26] Nielsen, M. A., and Chuang, I. L.: Quantum compu- Horodecki, Quantum Entanglement, Rev. Mod. Phys., tation and quantum information. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2000)