SSDD
Gold Member
- Nov 6, 2012
- 16,672
- 1,966
- 280
There are a few on this board who will dive straight into quantum mechanics as soon as the idea of a cool object further warming a warm object is called into question.....and they speak of quantum mechanics as if it, like climate science is "settled" science.
A recent survey was done and it seems that insofar as quantum mechanics goes, there is little that the "experts" agree on. This belief that any science is settled and not subject to question seems to be one of the more serious symptoms of postmodern science.
This poll was given to the participants of a quantum foundations confrence. Here are some of the results...
Randomness of quantum processes (e.g. decay of nuclei) is:
64%: fundamental
48%: irreducible
9%: only apparent
0%: masking a hidden determinism
Do objects have well-defined properties before measurements?
52%: yes, in some cases
48%: no
9%: undecided
3%: always
Einstein's view on quantum mechanics is:
64%: wrong
12%: will be shown wrong
12%: we don't know
6%: will be shown right
0%: is right
Bohr's view on quantum mechanics is:
30%: we have to wait
27%: wrong
21%: correct
9%: will be shown right
3%: will be shown wrong
A similar split appears when it comes to the measurement problem:
39%: solved (now or later) in a different way
27%: a pseudoproblem
27%: none of the above
24%: a severe difficulty threatening QM
15%: solved by decoherence
What is the message of the violation of Bell's inequalities?
64%: local realism is untenable
52%: unperformed experiments have no results
36%: some notion of nonlocality
12%: action at a distance in the physical world
6%: let's not jump the gun, take loopholes seriously
Quantum information is:
76%: fresh air in quantum foundations
27%: we need to wait
6%: useful for applications but of no relevance to foundations
6%: neither useful nor relevant
When will we have a working and useful quantum computer?
9%: within 10 years
42%: 10-25 years
30%: 25-50 years
0%: 50-100 years
15%: never
Right interpretation of state vectors:
27%: epistemic/informational
24%: ontic
33%: a mix of epistemic and ontic
3%: purely statistical as in ensemble interpretation
12%: other
The observer is:
39%: a complex quantum system
21%: should play no fundamental role whatsoever
55%: plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism but plays no distinguished physical role
6%: plays a distinct physical role (soul collapses wave function...)
Reconstruction of quantum theory:
15%: gives useful insights and has/will supersede the interpretation program
45%: gives useful insights but we still need an interpretation
30%: cannot solve the quantum foundations
27%: will lead to a deeper theory than QM
12%: don't know
Favorite interpretation:
0%: consistent histories
42%: Copenhagen
0%: de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave
18%: Everett many worlds/minds
24%: information-based
0%: modal
9%: objective collapse, GRW or Penrose
6%: quantum Bayesianism
6%: relational quantum mechanics
0%: ensemble interpretation
0%: transactional interpretation
12%: other
12%: no preferred one
How often have you switched interpretation?
33%: never
21%: once
21%: several times
21%: no preferred interpretation
Does the choice of interpretation depend on philosophical prejudices?
58%: a lot
27%: a little
15%: not at all
Superpositions of macro- different states are:
67%: possible in principle
36%: will eventually be realized
12%: in principle impossible
6%: impossible because of collapse theory
In 50 years, conferences on quantum foundations:
48%: will still be organized
15%: probably no
24%: who knows
12%: I organize one no matter what
So the next time you (and you know who you are) feel like making statements regarding QM as if it were settled science, remember that even the "experts" are in disagreement on damned near everything.
A recent survey was done and it seems that insofar as quantum mechanics goes, there is little that the "experts" agree on. This belief that any science is settled and not subject to question seems to be one of the more serious symptoms of postmodern science.
This poll was given to the participants of a quantum foundations confrence. Here are some of the results...
Randomness of quantum processes (e.g. decay of nuclei) is:
64%: fundamental
48%: irreducible
9%: only apparent
0%: masking a hidden determinism
Do objects have well-defined properties before measurements?
52%: yes, in some cases
48%: no
9%: undecided
3%: always
Einstein's view on quantum mechanics is:
64%: wrong
12%: will be shown wrong
12%: we don't know
6%: will be shown right
0%: is right
Bohr's view on quantum mechanics is:
30%: we have to wait
27%: wrong
21%: correct
9%: will be shown right
3%: will be shown wrong
A similar split appears when it comes to the measurement problem:
39%: solved (now or later) in a different way
27%: a pseudoproblem
27%: none of the above
24%: a severe difficulty threatening QM
15%: solved by decoherence
What is the message of the violation of Bell's inequalities?
64%: local realism is untenable
52%: unperformed experiments have no results
36%: some notion of nonlocality
12%: action at a distance in the physical world
6%: let's not jump the gun, take loopholes seriously
Quantum information is:
76%: fresh air in quantum foundations
27%: we need to wait
6%: useful for applications but of no relevance to foundations
6%: neither useful nor relevant
When will we have a working and useful quantum computer?
9%: within 10 years
42%: 10-25 years
30%: 25-50 years
0%: 50-100 years
15%: never
Right interpretation of state vectors:
27%: epistemic/informational
24%: ontic
33%: a mix of epistemic and ontic
3%: purely statistical as in ensemble interpretation
12%: other
The observer is:
39%: a complex quantum system
21%: should play no fundamental role whatsoever
55%: plays a fundamental role in the application of the formalism but plays no distinguished physical role
6%: plays a distinct physical role (soul collapses wave function...)
Reconstruction of quantum theory:
15%: gives useful insights and has/will supersede the interpretation program
45%: gives useful insights but we still need an interpretation
30%: cannot solve the quantum foundations
27%: will lead to a deeper theory than QM
12%: don't know
Favorite interpretation:
0%: consistent histories
42%: Copenhagen
0%: de Broglie-Bohm pilot wave
18%: Everett many worlds/minds
24%: information-based
0%: modal
9%: objective collapse, GRW or Penrose
6%: quantum Bayesianism
6%: relational quantum mechanics
0%: ensemble interpretation
0%: transactional interpretation
12%: other
12%: no preferred one
How often have you switched interpretation?
33%: never
21%: once
21%: several times
21%: no preferred interpretation
Does the choice of interpretation depend on philosophical prejudices?
58%: a lot
27%: a little
15%: not at all
Superpositions of macro- different states are:
67%: possible in principle
36%: will eventually be realized
12%: in principle impossible
6%: impossible because of collapse theory
In 50 years, conferences on quantum foundations:
48%: will still be organized
15%: probably no
24%: who knows
12%: I organize one no matter what
So the next time you (and you know who you are) feel like making statements regarding QM as if it were settled science, remember that even the "experts" are in disagreement on damned near everything.