Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
This note demonstrates a visibility threshold affecting Wigner's friend's perception, suggesting implications for quantum observations.
What this note does. Guérin, Baumann, Del Santo and Brukner (Commun. Phys. 4, 93 (2021)) proved that, except for two special choices of Wigner's measurement basis, no joint probability distribution consistent with unitary quantum mechanics describes Wigner's friend's perceived outcomes before and after Wigner's measurement. Their theorem is exact and binary: it asks whether two effective perception observables commute. This note asks how much the friend's records must degrade before the obstruction disappears, and answers in closed form. Writing Wigner's basis parameter as c = |a² − b²| and smearing both perception observables to visibility η, a persistent-reality description exists if and only if η ≤ 2/(√(1−c²) + √(1+3c²)). The curve equals 1 exactly at the two compatible cases of the qualitative theorem and is minimized at √3/2 ≈ 0.866 when c² = 2/3. What is new, and what is not. Stated plainly, because each ingredient is due to someone else. The scenario, the assumptions P1–P3 and the two effective perception POVMs are from Guérin et al. The equivalence between a linear two-time distribution and a joint POVM is established in the proof of their Theorem III.1 and is used as stated there, not re-proved here. The joint-measurability criterion for unbiased qubit observables is Busch's (Phys. Rev. D 33, 2253 (1986)) and is standard. Given the Bloch vectors, the threshold follows from that criterion in two lines; this note does not present the computation as difficult. The contribution is the robustness question, the closed-form answer, the worst-case basis, and an elementary observation about the single-time claim. A clarification the note also records. The frequently repeated claim that no single global density operator reproduces both agents' descriptions is false in its single-time operational form: the two states agree on the friend's entire record algebra, differing only in coherences she cannot access, so Wigner's own state satisfies both agents' operational constraints. The claim becomes a theorem only through the two-time persistence requirement. This is elementary and expected to be folklore among specialists; it is recorded because the inference is common and because it locates where the real obstruction lives. Status and scope. This is a preprint, not a peer-reviewed article. Two honest caveats are stated in the text rather than buried. The noise model is a stipulation on the effective observables, not a decoherence channel derived from a modified unitary model; Del Santo, Manzano and Brukner (Phys. Rev. Research 7, 033279 (2025)) have a physically motivated degradation parameter for the same scenario, and the map between the two is not known here. And smearing the first, sharp observable means degrading the friend's perception of her own outcome, which requires an interpretive commitment some readers will not grant; smearing only the later readout provably achieves nothing, which is why the symmetric family is used. Verification. All algebra was recomputed symbolically and independently: reconstruction of the perception POVMs from the unitary model, reproducing Eqs. (12)–(15) of Guérin et al.; derivation of the threshold and of the minimum at c² = 2/3; and a semidefinite-programming feasibility test of the joint-POVM constraints at five values of c on both sides of the threshold, agreeing with the curve in all ten cases. The three scripts are deposited with the note. Use of AI assistance. This note was prepared with substantial assistance from AI language models, used for symbolic computation, drafting, literature search, and adversarial review of the arguments. Every mathematical claim was independently recomputed symbolically and cross-checked numerically. No specialist in quantum foundations has refereed it. The author is responsible for the content. This disclosure is made unconditionally.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Manuel Flores Gordillo (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: