- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine

Physical Review A

Reuse & Permissions

It is not necessary to obtain permission to reuse this article or its components as it is available under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI are maintained. Please note that some figures may have been included with permission from other third parties. It is your responsibility to obtain the proper permission from the rights holder directly for these figures.

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Editors' Suggestion
  • Open Access

Questioning the absoluteness of free choices when internalized in Wigner's friend scenarios

Laurens Walleghem*

  • *Contact author: laurens.walleghem@york.ac.uk
PDF

Phys. Rev. A 114, 032431 – Published 14 September, 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/hf5j-t83v

Abstract

Wigner's thought experiment illustrates quantum theory's measurement problem by considering an observer who measures a quantum system inside a sealed laboratory, modeled unitarily by an outsider. Recent extensions of this thought experiment, referred to as extended Wigner's friend arguments, question how different observers can reason consistently about each other in quantum setups, and challenge the absoluteness of the outcome value obtained by the friend under a notion of locality. In this work, we present an argument against the absoluteness of free choices under the same notion of locality, using an extended Wigner's friend scenario based on the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph theorem. Similar arguments based on other contextuality or nonlocality models are possible.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

References (78)

  1. T. Maudlin, Three measurement problems, Topoi 14, 7 (1995).
  2. I. Pitowsky, Quantum mechanics as a theory of probability, in Festschrift in Honor of Jeffrey Bub, edited by W. Demopoulos and I. Pitowsky, Western Ontario Series in Philosophy of Science (Springer, New York, 2007).
  3. J. Bub and I. Pitowsky, Two dogmas about quantum mechanics, in Many Worlds? Everett, Quantum Theory, and Reality, edited by S. Saunders, J. Barrett, A. Kent, and D. Wallace (Oxford University Press, 2010), pp. 431–456.
  4. Č. Brukner, On the quantum measurement problem, in Quantum [Un]Speakables II Half a Century of Bell's Theorem edited by R. Bertlmann and A. Zeilinger (Springer, Cham, 2017), pp. 95–117.
  5. M. Schlosshauer, Decoherence, the measurement problem, and interpretations of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 76, 1267 (2005).
  6. A. J. Leggett, The quantum measurement problem, Science 307, 871 (2005).
  7. J. R. Hance and S. Hossenfelder, What does it take to solve the measurement problem? J. Phys. Commun. 6, 102001 (2022).
  8. G. A. D. Briggs, J. N. Butterfield, and A. Zeilinger, The Oxford questions on the foundations of quantum physics, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. A 469, 20130299 (2013).
  9. E. P. Wigner, Remarks on the mind-body question, in Philosophical Reflections and Syntheses, edited by J. Mehra, The Collected Works of Eugene Paul Wigner, Vol. B/6 (Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1995), pp. 247–260.
  10. D. Frauchiger and R. Renner, Quantum theory cannot consistently describe the use of itself, Nat. Commun. 9, 3711 (2018).
  11. K. 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, Nat. Phys. 16, 1199 (2020).
  12. E. G. Cavalcanti and H. M. Wiseman, Implications of local friendliness violation for quantum causality, Entropy 23, 925 (2021).
  13. M. Haddara and E. G. Cavalcanti, A possibilistic no-go theorem on the Wigner's friend paradox, New J. Phys. 25, 093028 (2023).
  14. 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, Commun. Phys. 4, 93 (2021).
  15. A. Utreras-Alarcón, E. G. Cavalcanti, and H. M. Wiseman, Allowing Wigner's friend to sequentially measure incompatible observables, Proc. R. Soc. A 480, 20240040 (2024).
  16. M. Haddara and E. G. Cavalcanti, Local friendliness polytopes in multipartite scenarios, Phys. Rev. A 111, 012206 (2025).
  17. J. Szangolies, The quantum Rashomon effect: A strengthened Frauchiger-Renner argument, arXiv:2011.12716.
  18. L. Walleghem, R. S. Barbosa, M. Pusey, and S. Weigert, A refined Frauchiger–Renner paradox based on strong contextuality, Quantum 10, 2116 (2026).
  19. L. Walleghem, R. Wagner, Y. Yīng, and D. Schmid, Extended Wigner's friend paradoxes do not require nonlocal correlations, Phys. Rev. A 112, 022212 (2025).
  20. L. Walleghem, Y. Yīng, R. Wagner, and D. Schmid, Connecting extended Wigner's friend arguments and noncontextuality, Quantum 9, 1819 (2025).
  21. L. Walleghem and L. Catani, An extended Wigner's friend no-go theorem inspired by generalized contextuality, arXiv:2502.02461.
  22. V. Vilasini, N. Nurgalieva, and L. del Rio, Multi-agent paradoxes beyond quantum theory, New J. Phys. 21, 113028 (2019).
  23. V. Vilasini and M. P. Woods, A general quantum circuit framework for Extended Wigner's Friend Scenarios logically and causally consistent reasoning without absolute measurement events, Phys. Rev. X (to be published).
  24. N. Ormrod, V. Vilasini, and J. Barrett, Which theories have a measurement problem? New J. Phys. 28, 024506 (2026).
  25. G. Leegwater, When Greenberger, Horne and Zeilinger meet Wigner's friend, Found. Phys. 52, 68 (2022).
  26. D. Schmid, Y. Yīng, and M. Leifer, A review and analysis of six extended Wigner's friend arguments, arXiv:2308.16220.
  27. Č. Brukner, A no-go theorem for observer-independent facts, Entropy 20, 350 (2018).
  28. N. Ormrod and J. Barrett, A no-go theorem for absolute observed events without inequalities or modal logic, arXiv:2209.03940.
  29. N. Nurgalieva and L. del Rio, Inadequacy of modal logic in quantum settings, EPTCS 287, 267 (2019).
  30. S. B. Montanhano, Contextuality in multi-agent paradoxes, Found. Sci. 30, 971 (2025).
  31. M. Żukowski and M. Markiewicz, Physics and metaphysics of Wigner's friends: Even performed premeasurements have no results, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 130402 (2021).
  32. Y. Yìng, M. M. Ansanelli, A. D. Biagio, E. Wolfe, and E. G. Cavalcanti, Relating Wigner's friend scenarios to nonclassical causal compatibility, monogamy relations, and fine tuning, Quantum 8, 1485 (2024).
  33. L. Walleghem, Wigner's friend's black hole adventure: An argument for complementarity? arXiv:2507.05369.
  34. M. F. Pusey, J. Barrett, and T. Rudolph, On the reality of the quantum state, Nat. Phys. 8, 475 (2012).
  35. J. S. Bell, On the Einstein Podolsky Rosen paradox, Phys. Phys. Fiz. 1, 195 (1964).
  36. J. S. Bell, The theory of local beables, Epistemol. Lett. 9, 11 (1976).
  37. N. Brunner, D. Cavalcanti, S. Pironio, V. Scarani, and S. Wehner, Bell nonlocality, Rev. Mod. Phys. 86, 419 (2014).
  38. M. S. Leifer, Is the quantum state real? An extended review of ψ-ontology theorems, Quanta 3, 67 (2014).
  39. S. Mansfield, Reality of the quantum state: Towards a stronger ψ-ontology theorem, Phys. Rev. A 94, 042124 (2016).
  40. R. Spekkens, Why I am Not a Psi-Ontologist (Perimeter Institute, 2012).
  41. H. M. Wiseman, E. G. Cavalcanti, and E. G. Rieffel, A “thoughtful” Local Friendliness no-go theorem: a prospective experiment with new assumptions to suit, Quantum 7, 1112 (2023).
  42. L. Walleghem, On the notion of an observer (unpublished).
  43. Y. Yīng, D. Schmid, and R. W. Spekkens, A contextual advantage for conclusive exclusion: Repurposing the Pusey–Barrett–Rudolph construction, arXiv:2512.04173.
  44. A. Karanjai, J. J. Wallman, and S. D. Bartlett, Contextuality bounds the efficiency of classical simulation of quantum processes, arXiv:1802.07744.
  45. S. Abramsky and A. Brandenburger, The sheaf-theoretic structure of non-locality and contextuality, New J. Phys. 13, 113036 (2011).
  46. C. Budroni, A. Cabello, O. Gühne, M. Kleinmann, and J. A. Larsson, Kochen-Specker contextuality, Rev. Mod. Phys. 94, 045007 (2022).
  47. R. W. Spekkens, Contextuality for preparations, transformations, and unsharp measurements, Phys. Rev. A 71, 052108 (2005).
  48. D. Schmid, R. D. Baldijão, J. H. Selby, A. B. Sainz, and R. W. Spekkens, Noncontextuality inequalities for prepare-transform-measure scenarios, arXiv:2407.09624.
  49. D. Schmid, J. H. Selby, M. F. Pusey, and R. W. Spekkens, A structure theorem for generalized-noncontextual ontological models, Quantum 8, 1283 (2024).
  50. L. Catani and M. Leifer, A mathematical framework for operational fine tunings, Quantum 7, 948 (2023).
  51. A. Chaturvedi and D. Saha, Quantum prescriptions are more ontologically distinct than they are operationally distinguishable, Quantum 4, 345 (2020).
  52. L. Walleghem, Foundational puzzles on quantum universality: From Wigner's friend to black holes, Ph.D. thesis, University of York, 2026.
  53. N. Ormrod, T. van der Lugt, Y. Yīng, and J. K. Korbicz, Decoherence without the state: A causal quantum Darwinist approach, arXiv:2605.07090.
  54. A. D. Biagio, P. Donà, and C. Rovelli, The arrow of time in operational formulations of quantum theory, Quantum 5, 520 (2021).
  55. C. Rovelli, Agency in physics, in Experience, Abstraction and the Scientific Image of the World Festschrift for Vincenzo Fano, edited by C. Calosi, P. Graziani, D. Pietrini, and G. Tarozzi (FrancoAngeli, Milan, 2021), pp. 25–40.
  56. A. J. Parzygnat and J. Fullwood, From time-reversal symmetry to quantum Bayes' rules, PRX Quantum 4, 020334 (2023).
  57. A. J. Parzygnat and F. Buscemi, Axioms for retrodiction: Achieving time-reversal symmetry with a prior, Quantum 7, 1013 (2023).
  58. G. C. Ghirardi, A. Rimini, and T. Weber, Unified dynamics for microscopic and macroscopic systems, Phys. Rev. D 34, 470 (1986).
  59. A. Bassi and G. Ghirardi, Dynamical reduction models, Phys. Rep. 379, 257 (2003).
  60. A. Bassi, K. Lochan, S. Satin, T. P. Singh, and H. Ulbricht, Models of wave-function collapse, underlying theories, and experimental tests, Rev. Mod. Phys. 85, 471 (2013).
  61. R. Penrose, On gravity's role in quantum state reduction, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 28, 581 (1996).
  62. L. Diosi, A universal master equation for the gravitational violation of quantum mechanics, Phys. Lett. A 120, 377 (1987).
  63. D. Lazarovici and M. Hubert, How quantum mechanics can consistently describe the use of itself, Sci. Rep. 9, 470 (2019).
  64. 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“, Int. J. Quantum Found. 5, 80 (2019).
  65. A. Sudbery, Single-world theory of the extended Wigner's friend experiment, Found. Phys. 47, 658 (2017).
  66. A. Sudbery, The hidden assumptions of Frauchiger and Renner, Int. J. Quantum Found. 5, 98 (2019).
  67. H. Everett, “Relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 (1957).
  68. C. A. Fuchs and B. C. Stacey, QBism, polishing some points, arXiv:2512.14122.
  69. C. A. Fuchs, N. D. Mermin, and R. Schack, An introduction to QBism with an application to the locality of quantum mechanics, Am. J. Phys. 82, 749 (2014).
  70. C. Rovelli, Relational quantum mechanics, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 35, 1637 (1996).
  71. J. B. DeBrota, C. A. Fuchs, and R. Schack, Respecting one's fellow: QBism's analysis of Wigner's friend, Found. Phys. 50, 1859 (2020).
  72. E. G. Cavalcanti, The view from a Wigner bubble, Found. Phys. 51, 39 (2021).
  73. E. G. Cavalcanti, A. D. Biagio, and C. Rovelli, On the consistency of relative facts, Eur J. Philos. Sci. 13, 55 (2023).
  74. A. D. Biagio and C. Rovelli, Stable facts, relative facts, Found. Phys. 51, 30 (2021).
  75. R. B. Griffiths, Consistent histories and the interpretation of quantum mechanics, J. Stat. Phys. 36, 219 (1984).
  76. M. Losada, R. Laura, and O. Lombardi, Frauchiger-Renner argument and quantum histories, Phys. Rev. A 100, 052114 (2019).
  77. D. Schmid, Y. Yīng, and M. S. Leifer, Copenhagenish interpretations of quantum mechanics, in Quantum Physics and Cosmology The Mysteries of the Infinitely Small and the Infinitely Large, edited by H. Zwirn (ISTE/Wiley, 2025), pp. 133–170.
  78. S. Hossenfelder and T. Palmer, Rethinking superdeterminism, Front. Phys. 8, 139 (2020).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. A 114, 032431– Published 14 September, 2026
  • Received 5 June 2026
  • Accepted 13 August 2026
Crossmark - Check for updates button
Creative Commons Logo

Published by the American Physical Society under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. Further distribution of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the published article's title, journal citation, and DOI.

Published by the American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation