A snapshot of foundational attitudes toward quantum mechanics

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsb.2013.04.004Get rights and content

Abstract

Foundational investigations in quantum mechanics, both experimental and theoretical, gave birth to the field of quantum information science. Nevertheless, the foundations of quantum mechanics themselves remain hotly debated in the scientific community, and no consensus on essential questions has been reached. Here, we present the results of a poll carried out among 33 participants of a conference on the foundations of quantum mechanics. The participants completed a questionnaire containing 16 multiple-choice questions probing opinions on quantum-foundational issues. Participants included physicists, philosophers, and mathematicians. We describe our findings, identify commonly held views, and determine strong, medium, and weak correlations between the answers. Our study provides a unique snapshot of current views in the field of quantum foundations, as well as an analysis of the relationships between these views.

Highlights

  • We present the results of a poll on the foundations of quantum mechanics.

  • The 33 respondents sharply disagree on several fundamental questions.

  • Majority views include randomness in nature and the importance of quantum information.

  • We identify the correlations between different views.

  • Despite new developments, the interpretation of the theory remains controversial.

Section snippets

Why this poll?

In August 1997, Max Tegmark polled 48 participants of the conference “Fundamental Problems in Quantum Theory,” held at the University of Maryland, Baltimore County, about their favorite interpretation of quantum mechanics (Tegmark, 1998). By Tegmark's own admission, the survey was “highly informal and unscientific,” as “several people voted more than once, many abstained, etc.” While the Copenhagen interpretation gathered the most votes, the many-worlds interpretation turned out to come in

Results

Question 1

What is your opinion about the randomness of individual quantum events (such as the decay of a radioactive atom)?

Although we did not elaborate on the meaning of the word “apparent” in the provided answer, the distinction between the first and the second answer becomes clear when one contrasts the Everett interpretation with hidden-variables theories such as the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation. In the Everett interpretation, randomness is an apparent effect relative to a branching observer, with

Correlations

We also looked for relationships (correlations) between answers to different questions. To ensure representative sample sizes, we required a specific answer A to have been checked by at least 4 participants. Then, if a fraction f of members of this group had also checked a certain answer B, we registered a relationship between the two answers A and B if the following conditions were met:

  • (i)

    Answer B is different from answer A and was checked by at least 4 participants;

  • (ii)

    f exceeded a (fixed) threshold

Discussion

The statements that found the support of a majority—i.e., answers checked by more than half of the participants—were, in order of the number of votes received:

  • (1)

    Quantum information is a breath of fresh air for quantum foundations (76%).

  • (2)

    Superpositions of macroscopically distinct states are in principle possible (67%).

  • (3)

    Randomness is a fundamental concept in nature (64%).

  • (4)

    Einstein's view of quantum theory is wrong (64%).

  • (5)

    The message of the observed violations of Bell's inequalities is that local

Conclusions

Quantum theory is based on a clear mathematical apparatus, has enormous significance for the natural sciences, enjoys phenomenal predictive success, and plays a critical role in modern technological developments. Yet, nearly 90 years after the theory's development, there is still no consensus in the scientific community regarding the interpretation of the theory's foundational building blocks. Our poll is an urgent reminder of this peculiar situation.

Acknowledgments

We thank all participants for their willingness to share their views. The conference where the poll was conducted was made possible through generous financial support from the John Templeton Foundation.

References (7)

  • A. Fine

    The shaky gameEinstein, realism and the quantum theory

    (1996)
  • C.A. Fuchs et al.

    Quantum theory needs no ‘interpretation’

    Physics Today

    (2000)
  • D. Mermin

    What's wrong with this pillow?

    Physics Today

    (1989)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.
View full text