I think you are probably referring to the recent experiment by the researchers regarding the “Winger’s friend” thought experiment.

A link for the article is attached here with…

More Than One Reality Exists (in Quantum Physics)

Although the article and the experiment are interesting, whatever little knowledge I have about Quantum Physics or Physics in general, there is nothing terribly new in this… though I agree that it says some important things about our universe and “ultimate reality”. These are things that other observations and experiments have been telling us for some time, though there are not really firm conclusions you can draw from those.

The thought experiment and its experimental realization present a situation in which two observers can genuinely disagree about the state of things without either one being wrong ! Physically this is added to a host of similar situations we actually already know about. For example Unruh radiation is an analog to Hawking radiation for accelerating observers, and shows that an accelerating observer may discern real particles where a non-accelerating observer at the same location does not.

Similarly an observer falling towards a black hole sees no discontinuity at the event horizon, but an observer ‘hovering’ above it sees a distinct membrane-like “surface” with measurable properties (charge, conductivity, etc.)

What all of these things tell us is that our ordinary view of “objective reality” is somewhat flawed. We assume that objective things are also universal things, and subjective truths are not. But this is not essentially true — although there are of course strong links something can be objective but not universal, and conversely subjective things may be actually or effectively universal.

So two different observers may disagree about the density of particles at a point in space, or the state of a quantum system (as in the “Winger’s friend” experiment), even though those are not subjective. This does not mean that one of them is wrong… they can both be correct within the observational framework they are using !

The universe is complex and our descriptions of it are not, and cannot be, singular. A certain pluralism must enter into any description. This may or may not mean that the world itself is plural — that’s a separate and perhaps unanswerable question. But it clearly is true of our knowledge of the world, in science as in other areas.

Now, that doesn’t mean that all truths are matters of opinion. While we may disagree about the numbers of particles in a region and both be correct, this clearly doesn’t extend to, say, the number of people attending an inauguration (to choose an example nobody would ever argue about in the real-world).

But it may be useful to recognize as a principle of thought that there may be real and important situations where you don’t have to prove everyone else wrong for you to be right. And perhaps we can extend a little more respect to others views if we metaphorically extend that idea to interacting with others.

(Source: Philip Freeman, University of British Columbia)

Hope it helps… :D