
#1
Jan713, 08:42 PM

PF Gold
P: 670

http://lanl.arxiv.org/pdf/1301.1069.pdf 



#2
Jan813, 12:58 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,146

Cool paper! There were 33 respondents, and these included some of the top names in the field.
A few additional comments from the paper: Interpretations themselves: 42% identified with Copenhagen, 18% with MWI, 0% with Bohmian, and the remainder split amongst various nonspecific (such as "information based"). They conclude: "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." 



#4
Jan813, 01:23 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,146

New Quantum Interpretation PollIt is interesting that even though there were no Bohmians, 12% saw actionatadistance in Bell tests. And 36% had some notion of nonlocality (although that could mean almost anything). 



#5
Jan813, 01:32 PM

Mentor
P: 6,039





#6
Jan813, 01:44 PM

P: 1,657





#7
Jan813, 01:56 PM

Sci Advisor
Thanks
P: 2,951





#8
Jan813, 04:04 PM

PF Gold
P: 670





#9
Jan813, 04:06 PM

P: 123





#10
Jan813, 04:22 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,005

The poll only included manyworlds worlds in which the respondents were not Bohmian. In other worlds, there were definitely Bohmians;)




#11
Jan813, 04:45 PM

Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 5,146

Much of the school of thought known as Copenhagen really came out of the same conference where de Broglie presented his early ideas on the matter. Obviously, people were trying to get their heads around the new ideas being presented. And as has been pointed out by many, Copenhagen can really mean a lot of different things anyway. I think of it as a minimalist interpretation where the formalism rules, not as an expression (for example) of Bohr's viewpoint. 



#13
Jan813, 07:36 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,005

Technically, people like Valentini, although definitely Bohmian, are not in favour of the Bohmian "interpretation", since the consideration of nonequilibrium presumably allows deviations from quantum mechanics, ie it is a different theory and not just an interpretation. Do the questions allow for this possibility?




#14
Jan813, 10:02 PM

P: 684

It is quite interesting that not a single one of these foundations researches takes the possibility of (deterministic) hidden variables seriously. 



#15
Jan813, 10:17 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,005





#16
Jan813, 10:39 PM

P: 684

We don't know for sure but I personally think the people answered honestly. Why should they spoil Schlosshauer's and Zeilinger's poll instead of just not taking part if they are not interested in contributing?
The fair sampling loophole seems more important to me. ;) 



#17
Jan813, 10:42 PM

Sci Advisor
P: 8,005





#18
Jan913, 03:46 AM

Sci Advisor
P: 4,491

For example, at page 8 they say: "Similarly, the fact that de Broglie–Bohm interpretation did not receive any votes may simply be an artifact of the particular set of participants we polled." For comparison, in another recent unfair sampling of leading quantum foundationalists: M. Schlosshauer, Elegance and Enigma  The Quantum Interviews (2011) 3 of 17 (i.e., 18%) people prefer de Broglie–Bohm interpretation. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Quantum Interpretation Poll (2011)  Quantum Physics  245  
Help on classicalquantum boundary poll?  Quantum Physics  0  
A Poll about Quantum Tunnelling  General Physics  9  
quantum computersthe poll!  Quantum Physics  16 