← Gallery

πŸ”¬ Wigner's Friend

When the observer is inside the box, who collapses the wave function?

Beyond SchrΓΆdinger's Cat

You know SchrΓΆdinger's Cat: a cat in a box exists in a superposition of alive and dead until observed. But physicist Eugene Wigner asked a deeper question in 1961:

πŸ’­ Wigner's Question

What if a conscious observerβ€”Wigner's friendβ€”is inside the box, performing the measurement? From the friend's perspective, they see a definite result. But from Wigner's perspective outside, isn't the friend also in superposition?

This seemingly simple extension reveals a profound tension in quantum mechanics about the nature of observation, consciousness, and reality itself.

The Experiment

πŸ‘©β€πŸ”¬
πŸ§‘β€πŸ”¬
Superposition?
Sealed Laboratory
Quantum State (from Wigner's perspective):
|Ψ⟩ = 1/√2 (|β†‘βŸ©|😊 "saw up"⟩ + |β†“βŸ©|πŸ˜” "saw down"⟩)

The Two Perspectives

πŸ‘©β€πŸ”¬ Friend's Perspective

  • Measures the particle at time t₁
  • Sees a definite result (spin up or down)
  • The wave function has collapsed
  • There is a fact of the matter about what she saw

πŸ§‘β€πŸ”¬ Wigner's Perspective

  • Has not opened the lab yet
  • Friend + particle are in superposition
  • No collapse has occurred
  • Friend is entangled with the particle
🀯 The Paradox

When did the collapse occur? Was it when the friend measured? Or when Wigner opened the lab?

Both answers lead to problems!

Why This Matters

"It is not possible to formulate the laws of quantum mechanics in a fully consistent way without reference to the consciousness." β€” Eugene Wigner, 1961

Wigner's Friend exposes the measurement problem: What counts as a "measurement"? What causes wave function collapse? Does consciousness play a special role?

The Core Questions

Proposed Interpretations

🌍 Many-Worlds

Both outcomes occur in different branches. The friend sees "up" in one world and "down" in another. Wigner and friend split into multiple copies.

🎭 Copenhagen

Collapse happens when a "classical" system measures. But what makes something "classical"? This just pushes the problem back.

πŸ”— Relational QM

Facts are relative to observers. The friend has her facts, Wigner has his. There's no absolute "view from nowhere."

πŸ’« Objective Collapse

Collapse happens spontaneously at some scale (GRW theory). Large systems like brains can't be in superposition for long.

Recent Experiments (2019-2020)

Amazingly, physicists have tested extended versions of Wigner's Friend in the lab!

πŸ”¬ The Frauchiger-Renner Experiment

In 2018, Daniela Frauchiger and Renato Renner proposed an extended scenario with two Wigner's Friend setups. They showed that if quantum mechanics applies universally, observers can reach contradictory conclusions about the same events.

Experiments by teams in Vienna and Brisbane have confirmed that:

Historical Timeline

1935

SchrΓΆdinger proposes his cat thought experiment

1961

Eugene Wigner publishes "Remarks on the Mind-Body Question" introducing the Friend scenario

1985

David Deutsch refines the thought experiment

2018

Frauchiger and Renner publish their extended paradox

2019-2020

Experimental tests confirm quantum mechanics' predictions about observer-dependent facts

The Deep Mystery

"There are no facts of the world per se, but only relative to observers." β€” Implication of recent no-go theorems

Wigner's Friend forces us to confront a startling possibility: perhaps there is no single, objective reality that all observers share. Perhaps facts about the world are irreducibly perspectival.

Or perhaps quantum mechanics breaks down at the scale of conscious observers. Or perhaps the friend really is in superposition until Wigner looks.

The next time you observe something, ask: who's observing you? πŸ”¬