Very Surprising Stats: How Physicists Interpret the Foundations of Quantum Mechanics The first question is intended to investigate the specific opinions regarding the randomness found in quantum mechanics. The various answers correspond to how one would answer the question from the viewpoint of different interpretations. Thus, the first option “The randomness is only apparent” corresponds to the answer one would give from the viewpoint of the many worlds interpretation, since the universal wave function evolves in a deterministic (non-random) way through the wave equation, but every observer is embedded in the universe moving along different branches giving rise to an apparent randomness from the observer’s point of view. The second option corresponds to the answer one would give from the viewpoint of bohmian mechanics, where the observed randomness of quantum systems is only due to a lack of knowledge of the exact initial conditions. The majority said either: randomness cannot be removed from any physical theory or randomness is a fundamental concept of nature.
The second question pertains to the role of measurement in defining physical properties.
This question has some ambiguity to it because it might not be well-defined, what is meant by the word “physical property”. The intention of the question was to ascertain the participants’ view of wave function collapse; is it a description of nature or our knowledge of a system? A more formal version of “Is the moon there when you are not looking?”: Do you believe that physical objects have their properties well defined prior to and
independent of measurement? Majority said NO, or “in some’ cases, possible. 11 %: Yes in all cases. 27 %: Yes in some cases. 47 %: No! Others: undecided.
On superpositionality of macro-distinct-states: 55 %: in principle possible. 27 %: eventually experimentally realizable. Rest: no, due to non-collapse of wave-function.
The observer is: 37 % a complex quantum system. 10 % should play no role. 31 %: plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism, but plays no distinguished physical role. 22 %: plays a distinguished physical role.
How do you understand the measurement problem? 17 %: it is a pseudoproblem. 29 %: it is solved by decoherence. 16 %: it is/will be solved in a different manner. 6 % it is a severe threat to quantum mechanics. 32 %: don’t fully understand the problem to form an opinion.
What is the message of the observed violations of Bell’s inequality? 37 %: hidden-variables are impossible. 24 %: some notion of non-locality. 7 %: Unperformed measurements have no results. 3 %: Action-at-a-distance in the physical world. I don’t know the inequality well enough to have formed an opinion.
If two physical theories give the same predictions, what properties would make you support one over the other? (you can check more than one box). 87 %: Simplicity – simple over complex. 14 %: determinism holds. 86 %: consistency – paradox free. 23 %: ontic, not simply epistemic. 3 %: Chronology – The theory that was established first.
Do phycisists need an interpretation of quantum mechanics? 65 %: yes, to understand nature. 8 %: yes, but only for pedagogical reasons. 23 %: No, it is irrelevant as long as quantum mechanics provides us with correct predictions/results. 4 %: No, it is entirely based on personal beliefs.
What characterizes the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics? (you can check multiple boxes). 77 %: Collapse of the wavefunction upon measurement. 46 %: Indeterminism – Results are not completely specified by initial conditions. 17 %: Nonlocality, i.e. action-at-a-distance. 10 %: Quantum mechanics works well, but does not describe nature as it really is. 43 %: The correspondence principle – quantum mechanics reproduces classic physics in the limit of high quantum numbers. 71 %: The principle of complementarity – objects have complementary properties which cannot be observed or measured at t… . 9 %: I don’t know the interpretation well enough to have formed an opinion.
What characterizes the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? (you can check multiple boxes) 65 %: The existence of multiple parallel worlds . 3 %: The existence of multiple minds belonging to one person. 12 %: Locality, i.e no action-at-a-distance . 13 %: The observer is treated as a physical system . 45 %: No wave function collapse . 30 %: Determinism – Evolution of universal wavefunction is completely governed by the wave equation. 30 %: I don’t know the interpretation well enough to have formed an opinion .
What characterizes De Broglie – Bohm pilot wave interpretation of quantum mechanics? (you can check multiple boxes) 31 %: Hidden variables in form of the particles exact positions and momenta. 14 %: Nonlocality. 19 %: Determinism – Events are completely specified by initial conditions . 11 %: Possibility of deriving Borns Rule . 3 %: Wave function collapse. 30 %: Quantum potential – each particle has a an associated potential that guides the particle. 61 %: don’t know enough.
What is your favourite interpretation of quantum mechanics? 1 %: Consistent Histories . 39 %: Copenhagen. 2 %: De Broglie – Bohm . 6 %: Everett (many worlds and/or many minds) . 6 %: Information-based / information-theoretical . 1 %: Modal interpretation. 2 %: Objective collapse (e.g., GRW, Penrose). 1 %: Quantum Bayesianism. 3 %: Statistical (ensemble) interpretation. 0 %: Transactional interpretation . 3 %: Other. 36 %: I have no preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics .
What are your reasons for NOT favoring the Copenhagen interpretation? (you can
check multiple boxes) 44 %: The role the observer plays in determining the physical state is too
important. 23 %: The paradoxes that arise on the
macroscopic scale, e.g. Scrödinger’s cat and Wigner’s friend . 15 %: Nonlocality . 14 %: Quantum mechnanics describes nature as it really is. 32 %: Other .
What are your reasons for NOT favoring the many worlds interpretation? (you can check multiple boxes) 50 %: The notion of multiple worlds seems too
farfetched . 20 %: The notion of multiple minds seems too farfetched. 33 %: The intepretation is too complex compared to others – i.e. Ockham’s razor. 7 %: The interpretation is unable to explain the
Born rule. 57 %: It can never be corroborated
experimentally. 20 %: other.
What are your reasons for NOT favoring De Broglie – Bohm theory? (you can check multiple boxes) 41 %: It is too complex compared to other interpretations – i.e. Ockhams razor. 21 %: It has hidden variables, which makes the theory untenable according to Bells
inequality. 16 %: Nonlocality. 38 %: The notion of all particles posessing a quantum potential that guides them seems too far-fetched. 29 %: other.
How often have you switched to a different interpretation? 38 %: Never . 11 %: once. 12 %: several times. 40 %: I have no preferred interpretation of quantum mechanics.
