New Quantum Interpretation Poll

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...

The statements that found the support of a majority(i.e., answers checked by more than half of the participant)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 realism is untenable (64%).
6. Personal philosophical prejudice plays a large role in the choice of interpretation (58%).
7. The observer plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism but plays no distinguished physical role (55%).
8. Physical objects have their properties well defined prior to and independent of measurement in some cases (52%).
9. The message of the observed violations of Bell's inequalities is that unperformed measurements have no results (52%).

-Interpretations themselves: 42% identified with Copenhagen, 18% with MWI, 0% with Bohmian, and the remainder split amongst various non-specific (such as "information based").

I'm not sure but I feel left out, for some reason.

Cool paper!

There were 33 respondents, and these included some of the top names in the field.

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 non-specific (such as "information based").

-They conclude: "Yet, nearly 90 years after the theory's development, there is still no consensus in the scientific community regarding the interpretation of the theory's foundational building blocks. Our poll is an urgent reminder of this peculiar situation."

Is Copenhagen actually an interpretation? It seems to me an attempt, one that's mostly successful, to get on with using quantum mechanics without waiting for agreement about what it all means.

From a historical perspective, it seems fair to consider Copenhagen an interpretation (the first one?).

Gosh, I have no idea why.

It is interesting that even though there were no Bohmians, 12% saw action-at-a-distance in Bell tests. And 36% had some notion of non-locality (although that could mean almost anything).

I believe the pilot-wave interpretation predated the Copenhagen interpretation. It just wasn't as well received.

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

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

Yes. Nobody chose the answer "There is a hidden determinism" to the question "What is your opinion about the randomness of individual quantum events?"

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

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 it?

The fair sampling loophole seems more important to me. ;-)