A snapshot of foundational attitudes toward quantum mechanics
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)
The shaky gameEinstein, realism and the quantum theory
(1996)- et al.
Quantum theory needs no ‘interpretation’
Physics Today
(2000) What's wrong with this pillow?
Physics Today
(1989)
Cited by (148)
Premeasurement reliability and accessibility of quantum measurement apparatuses
2024, Physical Review AAn Alternative Foundation of Quantum Theory
2024, Foundations of PhysicsQuantum Theories with Local Information Flow
2024, Brazilian Journal of PhysicsLife as the Explanation of the Measurement Problem
2024, Journal of Physics: Conference Series